A History of The First Bulgarian Empire (Runciman)

Туркестанская Библиотека - www.turklib.
ru – Turkistan Library
www.turklib.com
Туркестанская Библиотека - www.turklib.ru – Turkistan Library
A history of the First Bulgarian Empire

.
Steven Runciman (G. Bell & Sons, London 1930)
Contents
Map of Bulgaria during the First Empire
Title page..
Preface
dedicated by gracious permission to Boris III, Tsar of the Bulgarians
Book I The children of the Huns
1. The five sons of King Kubrat
2. Barbarians in the Balkans
Book II The great powers of Europe

1. An Emperor’s skull
2. Excursion into the West
3. The auction of souls
Book III The two eagles
1. Emperor of the Bulgars and the Romans
2. Men of god and men of blood
3. The end of an empire
Epilogue
Apendices:
1. Original sources for early Bulgarian history
2. The Bulgarian Princes’ list
3. Ernach and Irnik
4. Christianity among the Slavs before the ninth century
5. Bulgar titles
6. The Great fence of Thrace
7. Leo the Armenian’s successful campaign
8. Malamir and Presiam
9. The Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets
10. Symeon’s imperial marriage scheme
11. Tthe peace of 927 and Peter’s title
12. The chronology of the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas’s Bulgarian wars
Bibliography: Abbreviations — Original sources — Modern works

Index
by Steven Runciman
fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge
G. Bell & Sons Ltd., London 1930

Printed in Great Britain by the Camelot Press Limited London and Southampton
dedicated by gracious permission to Boris III, Tsar of the Bulgarians
Steven Runciman
CONTENTS
BOOK I THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS
CHAPTER I THE FIVE SONS OF KING KUBRAT 3
CHAPTER II BARBARIANS IN THE BALKANS 22
BOOK II THE GREAT POWERS OF EUROPE

CHAPTER I AN EMPEROR’S SKULL 47
CHAPTER II EXCURSION INTO THE WEST 71
CHAPTER III THE AUCTION OF SOULS 99
BOOK III THE TWO EAGLES
CHAPTER I EMPEROR OF THE BULGARS AND THE ROMANS 133
CHAPTER II MEN OF GOD AND MEN OF BLOOD 184
CHAPTER III THE END OF AN EMPIRE 217
EPILOGUE 255
APPENDICES
I ORIGINAL SOURCES FOR EARLY BULGARIAN HISTORY 265
II THE BULGARIAN PRINCES’ LIST 272
III ERNACH AND IRNIK 279
IV CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE SLAVS BEFORE THE NINTH CENTURY 281
V BULGAR TITLES 284
VI THE GREAT FENCE OF THRACE 288
xi
xii
VII LEO THE ARMENIAN’S SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN 290

VIII MALAMIR AND PRESIAM 292
IX THE CYRILLIC AND GLAGOLITIC ALPHABETS 297
X SYMEON’S IMPERIAL MARRIAGE SCHEME 299
XI THE PEACE OF 927 AND PETER’S TITLE 301
XII THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EMPEROR NICEPHORUS PHOCAS’S BULGARIAN

WARS 303
BIBLIOGRAPHY 307
INDEX 325
MAP OF BULGARIA DURING THE FIRST EMPIRE at end

Steven Runciman
Preface
In the Balkan Peninsula memories linger long. The centuries of Turkish rule have passed like a
single night, and the previous ages have kept all the living passions of a yesterday. In a land
where races have perpetually overlapped and where frontiers have been seldom natural and never
permanently just, a spirit of rivalry and bitterness has inevitably permeated international politics
and their records far back into the past. Inevitably, Balkan historians have succumbed to this
spirit. All too sensible of the support that a kindly history can bring to their countries, they
cannot restrain themselves from ensuring the kindliness, from painting history in a light that is
favourable to them. It is natural enough, but a mistaken policy. Not only does it often inherently
defeat its ends—as when the Slav writers in unison pour contempt on the East Roman Empire,
because it was chiefly Greek, quite forgetting that to belittle your enemies is the least effective
way of magnifying yourself—but also it has long since ceased to achieve its object abroad. In
Western Europe, where national rivalries are less unendingly acute, and so learning has freed
itself from patriotism, the words of Balkan historians no longer carry conviction.
It is a pity; for there are many passages in Balkan history interesting and important enough to
deserve recording. But few have been recorded satisfactorily. In Eastern Europe there has been
too much passion; while Western Europe has adopted the attitude that nothing of consequence
happened in Eastern Europe till the growth of the so-called Eastern Question in the course of the
eighteenth century. Thus the First Bulgarian Empire has remained a vague and ill-known period,
whose very name falls as a
vi
surprise on most Western ears. But its story deserves attention, both for its significance in the
history of Europe, and also for its own qualities and the study of the great men that were its
rulers. It is in the hope of winning for it some of this attention that I have written this book.
Following the rule that it is not for the historian to meddle in modern politics, I have restricted
myself here to the history of the First Bulgarian Empire and no more. But, if its history can
arouse any interest in and sympathy with the country that is its modern heir, I shall be well
pleased; for that result is, I think, within the legitimate aspirations of the historian.
The First Bulgarian Empire presents one great initial difficulty for historians. We know its
history almost exclusively from external sources. Except for a valuable but meagre dated list of
the early monarchs, a few hagiographical writings, and a few inscriptions, mostly of recent
discovery, we only possess the evidence provided for us by chroniclers of the East Roman
Empire, with occasional sidelights from Western Europe. I deal more fully with the original
sources elsewhere; but, all the while, it is necessary to remember that there are inevitable gaps in
our information, particularly with regard to the internal history and the history of the frontiers on
the side away from the civilized world. Such lacunae are excellent playgrounds for the
Chauvinists, where their imaginations can play the most riotous games; but for the serious
historian they are highly discouraging, forcing him to advance with a timorousness or a
confession of ignorance that is most distasteful to his pride. It is possible that more evidence may
arise—that more inscriptions may be found to throw light in many places; but that only deters
the historian the more; he can never hope to say the last word on early Bulgarian history.
Consequently, few historians have attempted to deal
vii
with the First Empire as a whole. In Western Europe it has only been treated in one or two
chapters in histories that deal with the whole history of the Balkans or Bulgaria; and the most
important of these, Jireček’s Geschichte der Bulgaren, excellent in its day, is now out of date.
The others are of little value. In England, however, there is also a chapter, readable but
necessarily superficial, in the Cambridge Mediaeval History, vol. iv. It is only in books dealing
with various periods of the history of Constantinople that early Bulgaria has received
concentrated attention from Western writers, and then only in patches. But some of these works
are of great importance, as, for example, Bury’s History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 802–67
(his Later Roman Empire, 395-800, was written too long ago to be of much use to-day),
Rambaud’s Empire Grec au Xme Siècle, and Schlumberger’s great monographs on the Emperors
of the later Macedonian period. The careers of Cyril and Methodius have given rise to a large
crop of literature, dealing largely with Bulgaria, and remarkable chiefly for its various religious
prejudices. The most temperate of these books is Dvornik’s admirable Les Slaves, Byzance et
Rome. In addition, writers such as Bury, Jireček, Marquart, and others have written articles and
monographs on various questions affecting Bulgarian history; I cite them in my bibliography,
and, where they are relevant, in my footnotes. I myself, in my Emperor Romanus Lecapenus,
have given a detailed account of Symeon’s later wars.
But it is only when we come to Slavonic writers that we find a fitting interest taken in early
Bulgarian history. For some time now Russian historians—such as Palauzov, Drinov,
Golubinski, Uspenski, and Vasilievski—have written on various aspects and periods of early
Bulgarian history and have undertaken excavations and unearthed inscriptions of very great
value. Of recent years the
viii
Bulgarians themselves have turned to its study. Particularly I must cite Ivanov, to whose book
on Bogomil literature I am deeply indebted, and, most important of all the historians of early
Bulgaria, Professor Zlatarski. Zlatarski, besides having written many very useful short articles
and monographs, is the only historian to have attempted a full-length history of the period; his
great history of his own country has been brought so far, in two thick volumes, down to the close
of the First Empire. It is a work packed with learning and ingenuity, and is absolutely essential
for any student of early Bulgarian history. [1] I have ventured to disagree with Professor
Zlatarski on various points of judgement and interpretation; but his writings, together with the
personal help that he has given me, put me under an obligation to him that it is difficult
adequately to acknowledge.
An explanation is needed for the method of transliterating that I employ. With Greek names I
have adopted the traditional Latin transliteration; with Cyrillic the problem is more difficult. I
have not attempted to alter forms that are time-honoured and well-known—I write Sofia rather
than Sofiya; as for the rest, I follow, with one or two modifications, the rules approved by the
British Academy, [2] rather than the forms employed by the European Slavists, whose
ornamental additions to ordinary letters look unfamiliar to English eyes and some of whose
usages, such as ‘c’ for ‘ts,’ definitely invite error among the unwary. Proper names provide a
further difficulty. With
1. Its only great defect is an absence of any maps.
2. Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. viii. (1917-18), p. 529. I transliterate the Russian ‘e’
after a softened consonant as ‘ie’ rather than ‘ ̉ e,’ and I render the letter ‘yat’ as ‘ie‘ rather than
‘ê.’ Apostrophes and accents, though necessary for minute phonetic accuracy, serve only to
make restless the average eye. I transliterate the nasal ‘a’ which Bulgarian has inherited from old
Slavonic as ‘â.’ I also divide the strings of consonants which Bulgarian joins together with only a
hard sign with a ‘u,’ as in the name Bulgaria itself. The hard sign in Bulgarian has more of the
quality of a vowel than in Russian.
ix
regard to the persons whose Christian names have English equivalents, I have used these
equivalents. It would be pedantic to write of Tsar Petr or the Empress Aecaterine, or even Pope
Johannes. But many of the Bulgarian proper names are only known to us through alien,
principally Greek, versions. Where guidance has been given as to the names of the early Khans
in the Old Bulgar List, I have followed such guidance, save only that I have preserved the Greek
form Asperuch rather than Isperikh. [1] When the List ends, difficulties arise. Occasional
inscriptions help; but my rule, on the whole, has been to use the original Bulgar or Slavonic
name where it is obvious, but in doubtful cases to transliterate the Greek. [2] I adopt the same
rule with regard to Slavonic place-names. With Imperial place-names I have, except for obvious
exceptions such as Adrianople, transliterated the Greek form then current. In one case I have
been deliberately inconsistent; in the earlier parts of the history I call the city now known as
Sofia by its Imperial name, Sardica; but after the ninth century I call it Sofia. Actually in the
tenth and eleventh centuries it was known in Greek as Triaditza, or in Slavonic as Sredetsa; but
as the name did not survive I considered it merely confusing to employ it.
I have drawn a distinction between the words Bulgar and Bulgarian. The former I use to mean
the race of Hunnish invaders that formed the nucleus of Bulgaria, the latter the nation composed
by the amalgamation of the Bulgars and the Slavs. The terms the Empire, the Emperor, and
Imperial all refer to the East Roman Empire,
1. I have acted illogically with the name Kubrat—in Greek, Crubatus or Crobatus; in Bulgar,
Kurt. The form Kubrat has no better justification save that it is now generally employed. I use
Asperuch’s Greek form because he is best known from the story of the Greek chroniclers.
2. In the discovery of the Slav original forms I have relied very largely on Professor Zlatarski’s
judgement. In most cases it is easy; ᾽Ιβάτζης clearly was Ivatsa to his people.
misleadingly known as Byzantine. [1] To the contemporary world this Empire was simply the
Empire, and the Emperor was the Basileus that reigned at Constantinople; and to the East, at any
rate, the situation was not altered by the appearance of rival Emperors in Germany.
I give a brief discussion of the original sources in Appendix I; and I have appended at the close
of the volume a full bibliography. The page-references in the footnotes of the text refer to the
editions that I have cited there.
In conclusion I wish to thank very warmly my Bulgarian friends who have been of great
assistance to me, not only on my visits to Bulgaria, but also in supplying me with maps. My one
regret is that I have been unable to visit in person the splendid examples of old Bulgarian
architecture at Prespa and Ochrida, now under Jugoslavian dominion. I wish also to thank Miss
R. F. Forbes for her help over the proofs.
1. The term Byzantium is, I think, legitimate for describing the civilization of the Empire, but the
Empire itself was consciously the heir of the universal Roman Empire, and in no way local.
Book I THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS
CHAPTER I
The five sons of king Kubrat
Once upon a time, when Constans was Emperor in Byzantium, there lived a king called Kubrat
on the shores of the Sea of Azov. In due course he died, leaving five sons behind him, whom he
bade live in concord together. But the brothers in a short time quarrelled, as princes often do,
and, dividing the inheritance between them, departed each his own way, bearing his portion of
the people with him. The eldest brother alone, Baian, remained where he was born; the second
brother, Cotrag, crossed the Don, to the northward, and lived on the farther bank; the fourth
brother moved far to the westward, and, crossing the Danube, came to Pannonia, where he fell
under the domination of the Avars; the youngest wandered even farther, and ended his days in
the Pentapolis of Ravenna. But the third brother, whose name was Asperuch, crossed the Dnieper
and the Dniester and settled on the banks of the Lower Danube.
There he dwelt with his people, until the Emperor Constantine, displeased at the presence of
these barbarians on the very borders of the Empire, determined to stamp them out. The Imperial
armies marched to the Danube and invaded the wild country; where Asperuch’s hordes in terror
hid for four days in their fastnesses. But the Emperor’s feet were tender and sore; he decided to
retire and rest them in his city of Mesembria. The barbarian spies were alert; on his departure the
barbarians came out from their strongholds and attacked. The Imperial troops found themselves
leaderless; their Emperor had fled, they thought, so they too would flee. Close on their
heels came the barbarians, across the Danube, into the province of Moesia. The land pleased
Asperuch and his people; they were victorious, and the Emperor could not withstand them. So
there they remained, and there their descendants remain, even to this day.
For all its air of a fairy-tale, this story, told by the Greek chroniclers, [1] is in the main a true
description of the entry of the Bulgars into Bulgaria. This was not, however, the first time that
the Empire had come into contact with Bulgarian tribes. The kingdom of Kubrat, ‘of old called
Great Bulgaria’ (though actually its greatness was very newly established), had a past known in
part to the historians of Constantinople. We can go back, and, noticing their former raids into
civilization, peer into the mists that hang over the Steppes, to see if we can discover who were
these Bulgars whose final incoming, in the seventh century, disturbed so lastingly the untranquil
Balkans.
The Huns and their tempestuous onrush over Europe made a story that has often been told. But
whence they came and whither they went are lost in mystery. Some say they were the Hiung-Nu,
the race that was the terror of China; but the Goths, who knew them best, thought otherwise.
They told of the wicked sorceresses that King Filimer the Goth banished from his Scythian
kingdom, who mingled on their wanderings with the evil spirits of the desert; and from that wild
union were born the Huns. [2] Their going is as shrouded as their coming. Not long ago a wave
of militarism swept over Europe, and an awful ancestry became the boast of every bellicose
nation; Attila was proudly called cousin, if not grandfather, by them all. Of all these claims, it
seems that the Bulgars’ is the best justified; the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in
1. Theophanes, pp. 546-9: Nicephorus, pp. 33-5.
2. Jordanes, Getica, p. 89.
the valleys of the Balkans, diluted by time and the pastoral Slavs.
At the time of the Huns’ passing, the Empire was still the only civilized State in Europe; and so
it is to the Imperial writers that we must go for information. They cannot tell us much; the
Steppes were turbulent and very mysterious, and they could not get things clear. They made their
attempts at ethnological elucidation, but often it was easier to give them up and seek instead a
literary flavour, calling every oncoming tribe the Scythians or Cimmerians. Nevertheless, certain
facts emerge. On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled. His people, who had probably been only a
conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and
each went its own way. One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars.
It was in 482, some thirty years after Attila’s death, that the Bulgars first appear by name. The
Emperor Zeno, fighting against the two Theoderics and their Goths, found it necessary to call in
to help him the Bulgars, a tribe living apparently to the north-east of the Danube. [1] The
incident taught the Bulgars that the Empire could be put to some use; during the next few years
they made several successful raids on the Balkans, in 493, 499, and 502. [2] They also entered
again into the career of the great Theoderic. In 504 they were allied with the Gepids against him.
[3] In 505, when a brigand chief called Mundo (a relative of Attila, but by some said to be Getic
and by others Gepid) was attacked at Margum (the junction of the Morava and the Danube) by
the ‘Greeks’ (the Imperial
1. John of Antioch, Fragmenta, p. 619.
2. Marcellinus Comes, Chronica Minora, pp. 94, 95, 96. Marcellinus calls them Scythians in 493,
but Bulgars in 499, and, in 502, Consueta gens llulgarorum. Theophanes (p. 222), writing several
centuries later, mentions only the 502 raid, calling it the first entry of the Bulgars into history.
3. Cassiodorus Senator, p. 160.
troops), Theoderic’s general, Pitzia, went to his aid; the Greeks called in Bulgars to fight for
them, and the Bulgars there suffered their first defeat. [1]
In 514 the rebel Vitalian employed Bulgars to help him in his attempt against the Emperor
Anastasius. [2] In 535 they invaded Mysia; in 538 large numbers of Bulgars, led by two kings,
invaded the Balkans and succeeded in defeating and capturing various Imperial generals,
including a baptized Hun called Acum. [3] Next year Mundo reappeared into prominence; he
was now ruling in Sirmium, and, his old patron Theoderic being dead, he turned for patronage to
the Emperor Justinian. He proved a useful vassal, defeating Bulgar raiders so efficiently that no
other Hun dared cross the Danube. [4] And so for a while we hear no more of the Bulgars.
Indeed, the Bulgars of whom we have so far heard were a race of no great importance, a
wandering, predatory off-shoot of greater nations that lay behind to the east. To these nations the
historians of the days of Justinian, when the world was for a while more orderly, direct our
notice.
According to Procopius, there once lived a nation of Huns or Cimmerians in the districts to the
east of the Sea of Azov and north of the Caucasus. The king of these Huns had two sons,
Cuturgur and Uturgur. On his death they divided the people, and Cuturgur went off to conquer
new territory. He succeeded at the expense of the Tetraxite Goths of the Taman peninsula, the
Crimean
1. Marcellinus Comes, p. 96: Jordanes, Romana, p. 46, Getica, p. 125: Ennodius, pp. 210, an.
2. Malalas, p. 402, calling Vitalian’s allies πλῆϑος Οὔννων καὶ Βουλγάρων: Theophanes, p. 247,
using same words: Georgius Hamartolus, ii., p. 619, adds Γότθων.
3. Malalas, p. 437, calling them Huns: Theophanes, p. 338, calling them Bulgars, adding the
words καὶ δρούγγου, which have never been satis factorily explained: Anastasius (ii., p. 141) in
his paraphrase of Theophanes takes ‘Droggo’ to be the name of a Bulgar king, a partner of
Vulger.
4. Theophanes, pp. 339-40.
Goths, and other tribes that lived along the northern shore of the Black Sea; and his people made
the country their base, from which they raided farther afield. Uturgur, however, stayed in his old
home. [1] The eponymous princes probably were born in the simplifying mind of Procopius; but
certainly in the sixth century there were two close kindred Hunnish tribes, of the Bulgar branch
of the Huns, [2] situated on either side of the Sea of Azov, the Cotrigurs to the west and the
Utigurs to the east; and the diplomats at Constantinople found themselves forced to pay them
attention.
There were several Hunnish tribes with which the Empire had dealings then existing on the
Steppes; there were the Sabirs, whose ruler, a tempestuous widow called Boa, sought the alliance
of the Emperor, [3] there were the Ultizurs and the Burugundi, near relatives of the Cotrigurs and
Utigurs, whom Agathias mentions merely to tell of their destruction [4]; there were the Saraguri,
the Urogi, and the Onoguri, victims of the growth of Sabir power. [5] But, with the possible
exception of the Sabirs, the Cotrigurs and the Utigurs alone seem to have enjoyed a formidable
power and an efficient organization.
In 528 there was a king of the Crimean Huns called Grod—Theophanes euphonized his name
into Gordas, and John of Antioch even more mellifluously into Gordian—who came to
Constantinople to be admitted into the Christian Church. His Crimean Huns were probably
1. Procopius, De Bello Gothico, iv., 5, pp. 475 ff. He calls them Cuturguri and Uturguri or
Utiguri: Menander and Agathias call them Cotriguri and Utiguri: Theophanes only mentions the
Cotragi.
2. None of the sixth-century writers actually call the Cotrigurs or Utigurs Bulgars, but the
identification is made certain by later writers. See below, pp. 11, 15.
3. John Malalas, pp. 430-1. Theophanes, p. 269, who calls her Boarex. Sabir alliance was
considered useful against the Persians.
4. Agathias, p. 365, talking of Cotrigurs, Utigurs, Ultizurs, and Burugundi, says, ‘οὗτοι δε
ἅπαντες κοινῇ μὲν Σκύθαι καὶ Οὖννοι ἐπωνομάζοντο.’
5. Priscus, Fragmenta, p. 341.
Procopius’s Cimmerian Huns—that is to say the Cotrigurs, who had settled in the Crimean lands
of the Goths, themselves a Christian race. Grod was certainly a personage of some power; his
help had already been sought by the Emperor for the Iberians against the Persians. However, the
Imperial diplomats overreached themselves; this early evangelization was a failure. When Grod
returned home, determined to destroy his people’s idols of silver and electrum, his people
objected, and slew him, setting up his brother Mugel in his place. Mugel preferred to remain a
heathen. [1]
Meanwhile the Cotrigur power grew. The Tetraxite Goths, crushed by the Cotrigurs, lingered on
under Utigur patronage. They were orthodox Christians, and in 548 they sent to Constantinople
nominally to ask for a new bishop, but actually to give alarming reports of affairs on the Steppes.
[2] Their warnings were justified; in 551 twelve thousand Cotrigurs, under their leader Chinialus,
incited by the Gepids, invaded and ravaged the Balkans. The Emperor Justinian, remembering
the information of the Tetraxites, hastily sent an embassy and gifts to Sandilch, Khan of the
Utigurs, to urge him to attack the Cotrigurs in the rear. Sandilch was delighted to comply with
this request, and did his work only too thoroughly. So Justinian, with all the subtlety of
Byzantine diplomacy, told the Cotrigurs of the attack on their homes, and gave them money to
retire, and even offered to find them homes within his dominions, should they find themselves
dispossessed on their return. The Cotrigurs anxiously retreated; and soon afterwards two
thousand of them, under a chief called Sinnion, who had once served under Belisarius, came
back to the Empire and were settled in
1. John Malalas, pp. 431-2: Theophanes, ad aim. 6oao, pp. 269-70: John of Ephesus, Historia
Ecclesiae, p. 475: Procopius, De Bello Persico.
2. Procopius, De Bello Gothico, iv., 4, p. 475.
Thrace. Sandilch was annoyed at this volatile policy of the Emperor, and sent a long
remonstrance—verbatim through ambassadors, as the Huns could not write. But Justinian
ignored the complaints, and merely continued to send the Utigurs a yearly income. [1]
There was a short respite; but the Cotrigurs were incorrigible. In 558, under their king, Zabergan,
they came again, in even greater force. Their armies divided into three; one invaded peninsular
Greece, one attacked the Thracian Chersonese, and one, the greatest, led by Zabergan himself,
forced its way through the Long Walls to the very suburbs of Constantinople. The Emperor was
terrified; and the aged Belisarius was summoned to save the Empire. His strategy was successful,
and the Cotrigurs were outwitted and routed: while their first army was held up by the defences
of Thermopylae, and their second was defeated by the Emperor’s nephew, Germanus, at the
entrance to the Chersonese. In the meantime the Emperor sent again to the Utigurs. Fearing lest
they should be shy after their first experience of the Imperial alliance, he told them that the
Cotrigurs had carried off the money destined that year for them; he could have recovered it
himself, but he preferred to test their friendship by leaving it for them to do so. Sandilch was
impressed by the argument and wanted the money; and so the Cotrigurs and the Utigurs started
gaily on an internecine struggle that kept them fully occupied until a new factor appeared on the
scene and brusquely silenced them both. [2]
In the early years of the sixth century a race, known among the powers of the far East as the
Zhen-Zhen or the Zhuan-Zhuan, dominated over the inhabitants of Turkestan. As time went on,
the Turks tired of this oppression;
1. Procopius, op. cit. iv., 18-19, pp. 550 ff.: Menander Protector, p. 3: Procopius calls the Utigur
king, Sandil, Menander and Agathias (see next note), Sandilch. The Tetraxite Goths sent 2,000
men to help the Utigurs.
2. Agathias, p. 367: Theophanes, pp. 360-1.
10
and in the ensuing convulsions the Zhen-Zhen moved off to seek new worlds to conquer in the
West. There they received a new name, and as the Avars they played their terrible part in history.
[1] The Huns of the Steppes lay right across their path. But nothing could withstand the Avars
and Candich, their Khagan. The Utigurs were beaten, the Sabirs utterly destroyed; the Cotrigurs
were subjugated, and the Avars passed on, to cause panic-stricken turmoil among the Slavs that
were quietly filling the Balkans, and to crush the Antae, the bravest of them all. And so they
entered deep into Europe, and spent their days now raiding Germany, now attacking the walls of
Constantinople. In 562, Candich was succeeded by Baian, who seems to have organized and
ordered the vast Avar Empire, stretching from the Don to the middle Danube. Among their
sternly repressed subject-races were the Cotrigurs. [2] Meanwhile the Turks, seeking to emulate
their erstwhile masters, also moved westward to conquer. The weary Utigurs were no match for
them; in 568 they fell under Turkish dominion—the first time that the Bulgars experienced a
taste of their future destiny. [3] Thus, with the Cotrigurs enslaved by the Avars and the Utigurs
enslaved by the Turks, the curtain goes down on the first act of Bulgarian history.
When next the curtain rises, the scene is utterly changed. The stage is held by Kubrat, King of
Old Great Bulgaria.
Hitherto we have only known the Bulgars as they emerged into the view of Imperial history. It is
an inevitable limitation; for the Empire alone was civilized
1. I assume the identification of the Zhuan-Zhuan of the Chinese with the Avars to be generally
now accepted. See Marquart, Streifzüge, p. 43.
2. Menander Protector, p. 5.
3. Ibid, pp. 55, 87. Menander’s Uguri and Uiguri must be careless spelling for Utiguri; though,
on the other hand, the Hunnish tribes all enjoyed remarkably similar names.
11
enough to produce witnesses capable of writing history, or even of writing at all. But there is one
other important testimony, which it is now time to consider; the Bulgars that settled in the
present-day Bulgaria produced, in the eighth century, a List of their previous rulers, with dates
attached—a work unaffected by any of the historians of the Empire. Unfortunately they gave
their dates in their old dead language, so as to provide posterity with an innumerable series of
puzzles, philological and mathematical; it is only very recently that new evidence has allowed
historians to arrive at any satisfactory conclusions. [1]
Fourth on this List we meet the Khan Kurt, who reigned from 584 to 642. Name and date alike
identify him as Kubrat or Crobatus, King of Old Great Bulgaria, King of the Bulgars and their
kindred the Cotragi. Of Kubrat’s ancestry the Imperial historians say nothing; but the List tells us
that he was of the family of Dulo. Two of his predecessors had belonged to this family, though
the third, whom he immediately succeeded, was of the house of Ermi.
The first monarch mentioned was Avitokhol, of the house of Dulo, who reigned for the
portentous period of three centuries, from A.D. 146 to 437. His successor, Irnik, did not compete
with such tenacity of life; a mere century and a half was all that he could manage (437-582).
Next came Gostun, of the Ermi family, with a meagre reign of seventeen months (582-4). And so
we come to Kurt, who inherited sufficient longevity from his Dulo ancestors to reign close on
sixty years (584-642).
The name Avitokhol seems meaningless: unless we remember that, by the seventh century,
Christian, Jewish, and even Moslem missionaries were spreading Old
1. I accept Zlatarski’s dating. See Appendix II.
12
Testament stories all over the Steppes. The Turks improved on the Scriptures, and told of the
later history of Japheth, whose eldest son and heir was called Turk, and surnamed Yafeth-
Oghlâni (son of Japheth). Yafeth might easily modify itself into Avit, itself a word meaning
‘ancestor.’ Thus, perhaps, Avitokhol, ancestor of the first royal house of Bulgaria, was none
other than a grandson of Noah himself. Certainly no member of the Patriarch’s august family
would have thought anything of a reign of a mere three hundred years. [1]
Irnik’s parentage was definitely less holy. On the contrary, his father was the Scourge of God.
Attila, King of the Huns, left a son whose name was Ernach or Hernak (the Greeks by now
dropped their h’s). The Bulgars, we know, were Huns; and Attila died in 453, when, according to
the List, Irnik was on the Bulgar throne. That Irnik and Ernach were the same person there can
hardly be a doubt. [2] But Ernach lived in Little Scythia—in Bessarabia—and Old Great
Bulgaria lay on the shores of the Sea of Azov, stretching to the River Kuphis (Kuban). Ernach’s
descendants must, therefore, have some time moved to the east; possibly one of them early
assumed control over the Cotrigurs when that tribe migrated westward; but more probably during
the dark days of Avar rule it was a prince of the house of Attila—whose family had some time
acquired the surname of Dulo and had no doubt kept the headship of one of the many Hunno-
Bulgar tribes of the Steppes—that was able to supply the unifying force which rallied all the
Huns and
1. Mikkola, Die Chronologie der Türkischen Donaubulgaren, p. 23. He there quotes a Turkish
inscription found by Desmaisons at Abulghasi which told of the history of Japheth. Marquart,
Die Chronologie der Alttürkischen Inschriften, pp. 75-6, identifies Avitokhol simply with Attila.
This is possible, but I think the biblical origin is more convincing; see Appendix III.
2. Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 1, pp. 40-2, denies the identity of Irnik and Ernach. I give my reasons for
disagreeing with him in Appendix III.
13
Bulgars and so built the kingdom of Old Great Bulgaria. This unifier was, I believe, King
Kubrat. [1]
The List, then, permits the following deductions. First, from Avitokhol’s three centuries, we may
assume that the Bulgar nation had consciously existed for some time past, perhaps even from
146—time enough for it to have acquired a Patriarchal origin: secondly, from Irnik’s century and
a half, that the Bulgars of the List belonged to the branch of Attila’s family founded by his son
Ernach, and that roughly from 453 till 582 his descendants, known as the house of Dulo (why,
we cannot tell), were nonentities overshadowed by the memory of their ancestor: finally, from
582 to 584, the Dulo were replaced by a new but short-lived dynasty, the Ermi and their head,
Gostun, till in 584 the Dulo returned in the person of Kubrat or Kurt, the Liberator, who reigned
for fifty-eight years.
It was in the days of the Emperor Heraclius that Kubrat’s name was first heard at Constantinople.
John, Bishop of Nikiou, writing from the depths of Egypt, told a story of the rumoured alliance
between Heraclius’s widow, the Empress Martina, and Kubrat, King of the Huns; and he
explained it by mentioning that Heraclius had befriended the Hun at Constantinople in his youth.
Kubrat had become a Christian, and then had returned to rule triumphantly in his own country;
and he always henceforward regarded the family of Heraclius with grateful affection. Hence it
was that when Martina and the Patriarch Pyrrhus plotted to depose her stepson, the Emperor
Constantine III, people suspected Kubrat of being an accomplice. [2]
The Ethiopian Bishop was romancing when he pictured
1. John of Nikiou (see below) says that Kubrat made himself supreme over other tribes. Old
Great Bulgaria was clearly a composite kingdom of all the Hunno-Bulgars of the Steppes.
2. Chronique de Jean de Nikiou, p. 580.
14
Kubrat being brought up at Constantinople. Heraclius, his kind Emperor, began to reign in 610,
when Kubrat had been a king already for twenty-six years. Nevertheless, it seems certain that
Kubrat visited Constantinople a little later. In 619, according to the Patriarch Nicephorus, the
ruler of the Huns came there with his suite seeking to be baptized. The baptism took place, and
the Hunnish monarch returned, having been made a patrician. A few pages later, after speaking
of the Avars, Nicephorus tells of Kubrat, ruler of the Unogunduri, who revolted from the Avar
Khagan and sent to Heraclius to make an alliance: which was kept throughout his lifetime.
Kubrat was also made a patrician. [1] Both Nicephorus and John of Nikiou when they mention
Kubrat call him nephew of Organa.
Clearly Nicephorus’s two accounts refer to the same visit. The second indeed is dated in the
margin 635, but from its context it certainly may be a digression into the past. And John of
Nikiou’s story of Kubrat’s youth at Constantinople is clearly an embroidered improvement on
the same visit. Kubrat’s life-history thus fragmentarily emerges.
Kubrat reigned fifty-eight years; he must, therefore, have been a child when his reign began, and
as a child he would need a regent. The regent was no doubt his uncle Organa, probably a
maternal uncle; otherwise, as an adult member of the house of Dulo, he would certainly have
preceded his child nephew on the barbarous throne. [2] Gostun was either a usurper or possibly
an Avar-appointed governor, and it was Organa who restored the power of the Dulo. In 619,
Kubrat, having taken the government into his own hands, visited Constantinople to secure help
1. Nicephorus, pp. 12 and 24.
2. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to identify Organa with Gostun. It is unconvincing and

nothing is gained by it.
15
against the Avars, against whom he had recently revolted. At this time he was probably just a
Hunnish chieftain; his great kingdom was not yet founded. He secured Imperial help—the
Emperor was only too grateful for allies against the Avars—at the price of baptism; and on his
return he established, not only his independence, but also a supremacy over the neighbouring
tribes. When he died, he was ruler of a land lying round the lower Don and south to the
Caucasus, the kingdom called Old Great Bulgaria. And he left the five sons of the fairy-story.
It is a little difficult to identify the tribes that made up this kingdom. In his early life, Kubrat is
called lord of the Huns or (once by Nicephorus) of the Unogunduri. Theophanes, telling of his
sons, calls him lord of Bulgaria and the kindred race the Cotragi (the Cotrigurs), and talks of the
Onogunduri, the Bulgars, and the Cotragi as forming his subjects. But the situation of this
Bulgaria, from the Don to the Caucasus, is the same as that occupied by the Utigur kingdom. We
have heard no more of the Utigurs since their conquest by the Turks. The Turkish tide had ebbed
by now, but it must have been strong enough at its fullness utterly to swamp the Utigur power;
for it is strange that, while the Cotrigur name survived, the Utigur name vanished. However,
considering the geography, it is impossible not to see in the Bulgars of Theophanes the bulk of
the old Utigur people, stripped no doubt of its old ruling class, whereas the Cotrigur aristocracy
continued an unbroken career. The Onogunduri or Unogunduri present a new difficulty. Before
Kubrat’s time we never hear of them, but during the next few years the Imperial writers use their
name, the Huns’, and the Bulgars’ indiscriminately to describe the same race. It is possible that
the word is a composite affair, a blend of the Huns and the Bulgars, invented by the source from
whom Theophanes and Nicephorus both drew, in vague
16
confusion with memories of such early Bulgar tribes as the Onoguri and Burugundi. But all the
Hunnish tribes had names of a most unenterprising inter-resemblance, and so it is dangerous to
see in any of them an artificial composition. More probably the Onogunduri were the tribe over
which the descendants of Ernach ruled. Kubrat in his youth was only lord of the Onogunduri, as
Nicephorus says; but he led the revolt against the Avars, and, extending his power eastward over
the Cotrigurs and the leaderless Utigurs, founded the new kingdom. The Cotrigurs were probably
never completely absorbed. They remained in their old home across the Don, and in the next
generation separated again. The second of the five sons in the fairy-story was called Cotragus,
and he crossed the Don. Clearly, he owed his name to the nation over which he ruled. [1]
In 642, soon after his rumoured intrigue with the Empress Martina, Kubrat died, at a ripe age
and, we may hope, in the odour of sanctity—but we hear no more of his Christianity after his
visit to Constantinople; indeed, for two more centuries the Bulgars remained unmistakably
heathen. According to the List, his successor was Bezmer, who reigned three years, but after a
few months, in February 643, we hear of the accession of Isperikh—we have come here to
Asperuch—who reigned fifty-eight years. But, according to the Greek story, the five sons of
Kubrat, after living in peace together for a little, presumably under the headship of the eldest,
Baian, separated and each went his own way.
1. These problems are fully discussed in Zlatarski (Istoriya, i., I, pp. 84-96). Briefly summarized,
his conclusions are (i.) that the house of Dulo has nothing to do with Attila, (ii.) that the Utigurs
are the basis of Old Great Bulgaria, and (iii.) that Onogunduri is a composite word—Οὒννοι καὶ
Βούλγαροι—and does not describe a separate tribe. For (i.) see my Appendix III. For (ii.) I think
his geographical arguments unanswerable, and I am in agreement with the result, with the
legitimate modifications suggested above, (iii.) I think unconvincing.
17
It is possible that Baian (or Batbaian, as Theophanes calls him) and Bezmer were the same
person. [1] On the other hand, it is rash to identify names merely because it is convenient to do
so and they both have the same initial letter; besides, it would really be more convenient to
interpose a generation between Kubrat and his sons. Asperuch, the List tells us, reigned fifty-
eight years. The similarity of his reign to Kubrat’s is suspicious, though Asperuch’s was a few
months longer; but that is not sufficient reason for rejecting it. Certainly both Kubrat and
Asperuch enjoyed long reigns. But it seems unlikely that a son should only die one hunded and
nineteen years after his father’s accession. Moreover, Asperuch appears to have had younger
brothers. Even allowing for the lengthy lives that their excellent sour milk is said to grant the
Bulgarians, the matter remains unconvincing. Kubrat’s sons were more probably—some, if not
all of them—his grandsons. [2] Their father was Bezmer; but, sandwiched as his paltry reign was
between the great Kubrat’s and the great Asperuch’s, his fame never reached Constantinople.
Soon after Bezmer’s accession, the kingdom broke up and the tribes were divided up between
various princes of the house of Dulo. The reason was the pressure from a new conquering
Turkish race, the Khazars, whose later conversion to Judaism was to be a strange phenomenon in
the Christian-Moslem world. At present the Khazars were ruthless militant savages; and Old
Great Bulgaria lay in their path. The eldest of the Bulgarian brothers, Baian, stayed at his post;
his kingdom, depleted by terrified emigration, fell an easy prey to the Khazars, and he became
their tributary. Gradually, it seems, his
1. Zlatarski identifies them, which simplifies his history; but he does not face the difficulty of
Kubrat’s and Asperuch’s age.
2. I shall continue to call them, for convenience, the sons of Kubrat.
18
people were mostly absorbed by the conquerors, without much difficulty, for Huns and Turks
came both from the common Turanian stock; and the remainder lasted only to be wiped out by
the Maygars. Thus Old Great Bulgaria quietly vanished. [1]
The second brother was known to the Greeks as Cotragus, clearly because he ruled the Cotrigurs.
Probably he was a viceroy who declared his independence at the collapse of the central power.
According to the fairy-story, he crossed the Don and lived on the far side, the northern bank.
This crossing would be merely his inevitable journey when he went to govern the Cotrigurs.
Later, however, when the Khazar dominion increased, the Cotrigurs moved farther to the north,
recrossing the Don during its upper eastward course, and settling by the middle Volga and the
Kama. There their descendants remained for many generations to come, known to the world as
the Black or White (‘White’ is synonymous with ‘Great’), or even the Silver (an improvement on
‘White’), or merely the Kama Bulgarians. In time they acquired a certain civilization, probably
through the Khazars; their capital city, Bulgar, by the junction of the Volga and the Kama,
became an important emporium, the centre of the trade of the Volga plain. Early in the tenth
century they became converts to Islam, and even imported a Moslem missionary whose gifts
included castle-building—indeed he fortified, not only their souls, but their capital—the writer
Ibn-Foszlan. Their empire endured till the twelfth century, when they fell before the withering
might of the Mongols.
1. Zlatarski, Istoriya, p. 114, says that Batbaian founded the Black Bulgaria (on the River Kuban)
of Constantine Porphyrogennetus’s day. But not only Constantine, but also the tenth-century
Arab geographers clearly knew only of one Bulgaria on the Steppes, the Kama-Volga Bulgaria,
called also, it is true, by such contradictory names as Black and White Bulgaria. See Constantine
Porphyrogennetus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 81, 180: also Maçoudi, Les Prairies d’Or, p.
16; Ibn-Foszlan, De Bulgaris, passim. It seems, however, that till its extinction Old Great
Bulgaria was also called White Bulgaria.
19
To the last they remained notorious and efficient raiders. [1]
The third brother was Asperuch, whose fortune, following the pattern of the Greek story-tellers,
we shall trace later. The fourth brother crossed the Carpathians and the Danube and came to
Pannonia, where the Avar Empire had its main seat. There he became a vassal of the Avars.
Probably this migration was due to a desire to combine with the Bulgars that had come with the
Avars into the central Danubian plain. That there were Bulgars there is incontestable. Indeed, the
Bulgars that accompanied the Avars to the great siege of Constantinople in 626 were almost
certainly of this branch; for Kubrat’s Bulgars were at that time intriguing with the Emperor
against the Avars. Moreover, in 630 the German historians tell of a strange, tragic episode. In
that year, they say, there was war in Pannonia between the Avars and the Bulgars. The latter
were beaten, and nine thousand of them, men, women, and children, migrated to Germany and
asked King Dagobert to assign them quarters. He bade them go to Bavaria, but told the
Bavarians to kill them all. This was almost completely done; only the leader, Alciocus, and
seven hundred of them survived, and fled for refuge to the Wendic Mark. [2] Probably this war
was a revolt of the Western Bulgars in connection with Kubrat’s successful revolts farther to the
east. But, despite Alciocus’s emigration, there were probably many Bulgars remaining in
Pannonia; and it was in reinforcement of these that the fourth son of Kubrat came. The
Pannonian Bulgars remained under Avar suzerainty till the opening of the ninth century, when
we shall hear of them again. [3]
1. See references given in preceding note.
2. Fredegarius Scholasticus, p. 187: Gesta Dagoberti, p. 411, ad aim. 630, gives the same story,
leaving out the name Alciocus and allowing no survivors from the Bavarian massacre. Zlatarski
(Istoriya, pp. 119-20) says that the name Alciocus was an invention, made in confusion with
Alzeco; see p. 21.
3. See p. 50.
20
From the years 675 to 677 the great city of Thessalonica was besieged by a horde of Bulgar
tribes, allied with insurgent Slavs of the neighbourhood. Various Bulgar tribes are mentioned by
names that occur there and nowhere else; but their leader was a certain Kuber who had recently
revolted against his Avar overlords, and crossed the Danube to settle in the Cormesian plain,
near the city. As in the previous great sieges by the Slavs, it needed the personal intervention of
their patron saint, Demetrius, to save the Thessalonians. [1] The appearance of Kuber and his
Bulgars, who had already crossed the Danube by 675, raises certain problems. To solve them,
Kuber has been identified as the fourth son of King Kubrat. He went first to Pannonia and there
fell under Avar domination; but, disliking it, he revolted and moved south across the Danube and
up the Morava, and so to the confines of Thessalonica. [2] It is possible, but it seems improbable,
that Kubrat’s fourth son should have been so energetic. On the other hand, the obvious similarity
between the names Kubrat and Kuber must not tempt us into a fast identification. But the
similarity may not be entirely pointless. Kubrat was still the only great Bulgarian of whom men
had hitherto heard. The Thessalonians may well, therefore, have given his name in a debased
form to their local Bulgarian; or the martyrologist may simply have made a general muddle of
names. But it seems best to attempt no embroidery on the known facts, and to leave Kuber
unconnected by relationship or name to King Kubrat. Kuber was merely a stray Bulgarian
chieftain, who may have been in the vanguard of Asperuch’s invaders, but more probably,
considering the geography of the Balkans, came from Pannonia. He may have been a
1. Sancti Demetrii Martyris Acta, pp. 1364 ff. The date of the siege is approximate; we know it
began between the years 670 and 675.
2. Zlatarski, Istoriya, pp. 121-2, 148-51.
21
well-travelled son of Kubrat, or he may have revolted against the Avars with Alciocus, or
independently at a later date. Anyhow, after the long, divinely frustrated siege, we hear no more
of Kuber. His tribes mingled and were absorbed with their allies, the Slavs, and thus laid the first
foundation of the Bulgar claims to Macedonia.
The youngest son went to Ravenna. Here the Greek chroniclers made a small, pardonable
mistake. Ravenna, they knew, was a great Italian city, and round it in these troublous times of
depopulation many barbarians had settled, Bulgars amongst them [1]; so they used Ravenna for
Italy. In truth, the youngest son went farther. In the days of the Lombard King Grimoald (662-
671), the Bulgar ‘duke’ Alzeco peaceably invaded Italy and offered himself and his army to be
the King’s vassals. Grimoald sent them to Benevento, to his son Romoald, who assigned them
three villages near his capital—Sepinum, Bovianum, and Isernia. They settled there, and ‘to this
day’—a century later—still partially spoke their old language. [2] There is no reason to doubt
that herein we see the fate of the fifth division of Kubrat’s Bulgars—a weak, straggling division
by the end of its long journey. The name Alzeco is suspiciously like Alciocus; but that proves
nothing. The two chieftains were clearly not the same.
Thus the Bulgar family split up, and spread over Europe, from the Volga to the shadow of
Vesuvius. It remains now only to consider the strongest branch of all, the only branch to survive
the tempests of the centuries. Asperuch, less restless than his younger brothers, but more
enterprising than his elders, moved along the Black Sea coast, across the great rivers of the
Steppes, to the land of lagoons and marshes where the Danube joins the sea.
1. Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum, lib. ii., p. 87.
2. Ibid., op. cit., p. 154.
Book I THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS
CHAPTER II
Barbarians in the Balkans
For centuries past, the Balkan peninsula had been the playground of barbarians, a land that the
fierce tribes pillaged and destroyed and left deserted. But till the sixth century none of them
made of it a lasting home. The Goths and Gepids, the Sarmatians and the Huns, had all passed
through, trailing blood and fire, and moved on to seek richer countries. It was left for a gentler
race, the Slavs, to inherit the Balkans.
Gentle is here a comparative term; but the Slav penetration was covert, an almost unnoticed
work achieved under the shadow of more terrible and spectacular movements. In the fourth
century the Slavs were still, it seems, hidden in their home, the forests of Western Russia; by the
beginning of the sixth century, the world, having hitherto ignored them, was astonished to find
that all over Central Europe, from the Elbe and the Alps to the Russian rivers, from the Baltic to
the Save and the Danube, Slavs were thick upon the ground. The statesmen of the Empire,
anxiously watching the Danube frontier, grew alarmed. The Slavs might be less savage than the
Huns, but they were very numerous, and one of their tribes, the Antae, now by the mouth of the
Danube, was renowned for its warlike qualities.
In the reign of the Emperor Justinian the storm broke— softly at first, in isolated raids. In 534
the Slavs made their first excursion across the river. In 545 and 549 they penetrated to Thrace, in
547 to Dyrrhachium; in 550 they threatened Adrianople and the great city for which they
22
23
had struggled so long, and still in vain, Thessalonica. [1] In 558 they followed in the train of the
Gotrigurs, to the walls of Constantinople. [2]
As the century passed on, the Avars loomed larger in the background; and the Slavs decided to
seek safer homes across the Danube. In 581, for the first time, they entered the Balkans and
remained. [3] In the following years their settlements feverishly increased; between 584 and 589
there were no less than ten invasions of the Greek peninsula. [4] The Avars followed the Slav
refugees, and the two would even combine against the Empire. In 597 Thessalonica suffered at
their hands the first of its great sieges, when Saint Demetrius had to come to the rescue of his
city. [5] In 601 the Emperor Maurice, victorious against the Avars, made a treaty in which the
Imperial frontier was still placed at the Danube. [6] But it was an idle boast. During the next
years the troubles of Phocas’s usurpation and the Persian war denuded the Balkans of Imperial
troops; and the Slavs could do as they pleased. They overran Dalmatia, destroying Salona, the
old metropolis, and spread eastward over the peninsula: till, by the fourth decade of the century,
only the great maritime cities and the Albanian mountains were untainted; even the Peloponnese
had its Slavic settlements. [7]
At the same time the Avars were growing in strength, even in the Balkans, to reach their high
tide at the great siege of Constantinople in 626: in which the Slavs joined,
1. Procopius, Bello Gothico, pp. 329, 331, 441, 444, 592.
2. Agathias, p. 367: Theophanes, p. 360.
3. John of Ephesus (trans. Schönfelder), p. 8: Michel le Syrien, p. 347.
4. Michel le Syrien, p. 361: Evagrius, p. 228.
5. Sancti Demetrii Martyris Acta, pp. 1284 ff.
6. Theophylact Simocatta, pp. 250-60: Theophanes, p. 432 (he calls the Avars Bulgars, mixing
them with their vassals).
7. Sancti Demetrii Martyris Acta, p. 1361: Niederle, Slovanské Starožitnosti, ii., p. 224.
Thessalonica had twice again been nearly besieged (S. D. M. Acta, pp. 1336, 1341 ff.).
24
as their vassals. [1] After the failure of the siege the Avar power ebbed. In the distant north of
their empire, King Samo freed the Czechs and the Moravians; farther to the south, the Balkan
Slavs were strengthened by new invaders of their kindred, the Croats and the Serbs. As the Avar
dominion receded, the Imperial dominion grew; and the Emperor Heraclius, victorious at last
from the Persian and Avar wars, induced the Balkan Slavs to recognize his suzerainty. He even
attempted to strengthen his hold by Christian missions; but, except along the Dalmatian coast,
where local missionaries from the holy Latin cities aided the work, the evangelization had little
result. [2]
From the Avar decline till Asperuch’s advance from the Danube delta, the peninsula enjoyed a
few decades’ comparative quiet. The Empire had recovered a certain control. The coast cities
had never passed into Slav hands—though Thessalonica’s escape had more than once been
thought literally miraculous—and now with the peace were able to spread their commercial, and
therefore political, influence over their neighbours. In the centre of the peninsula, Upper
Macedonia, and the Morava plain, and in the Greek watershed, the Slavs were to all intents
independent; but farther east, along the ranges of Haemus and Rhodope, the Empire kept a few
inland garrison cities, to guard the roads to Constantinople— cities such as Adrianople,
Philippopolis, and, far into the heart of the barbarians, Sardica (Sofia). [3] The Slavs by
themselves did not constitute a great menace. They were brigands and pirates, but never
systematic conquerors.
1. Theophanes, p. 485.
2. See Appendix IV.
3. The extent of the destruction of the old city life can to some degree be gauged by the various
lists of bishops and signatures to the Councils. These have been admirably analysed in Dvornik,
Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome, p. 74 ff. I am inclined to think that the organized establishment of
garrisons in the inland cities probably only dates from Constantine V’s campaigns; but
presumably some defence was always maintained in towns like Adrianople or Sardica.
25
Of old, the Antae alone had achieved any sort of political organization; and though soon the
Croats, and a little later the Serbs, were to feel their way out of chaos, as yet the Balkan Slavs
were disunited and disorganized. They all spoke much the same language, and probably indulged
in the same heathen religions. But there their unity ended. In other respects they were divided up
into small tribes, each with its petty chieftain, [1] and inclined to be jealous of its neighbours:
some of the tribes were purely predatory, but more, it seems, were peacefully inclined and
pastoral. They were too prolific not to be restless; but once they had overrun the whole country
there was no reason why they should not have settled down and, from their disorganized
weakness, fallen gradually under the recovering power of the Emperors from Constantinople. In
the past the Slavs had only been an aggressive menace when they had attacked in the train of the
Cotrigurs or the Avars. If now no fresh invaders were allowed to enter in, the Slavs as a political
force might fail, and the Balkans be saved to Byzantium.
But Asperuch the Bulgar came to the Danube, and crossed.
This first resting-place of Asperuch, after he left his home, has always been a puzzle. He crossed
the Dnieper and the Dniester, and came at last to a place called Onglos or Oglos; but neither of
our informants, Nicephorus and Theophanes, seems sure on which side of the Danube to situate
it. Subsequent generations have remained in equal doubt, arguing each side in turn. The answer
probably is both sides, but more particularly the middle of the river. Oglos was one of the islands
of the Danube delta, probably
1. Called in the Sancti Demetrii Martyris Acta, ῥήγες. The accounts of the sieges of Thessalonica
provide a good picture of the Slavs at that time. See references above.
26
Peuce. [1] The muddle is certainly helped by the fact that neither Theophanes nor Nicephorus,
each deriving his matter from the same lost source, understood the situation, which was probably
incompletely described in the source; and so each improved on it in his own way. Anyhow, it is
useless to attempt great accuracy. Asperuch’s Bulgars were a numerous race. Oglos, or Peuce,
was their temporary centre, but there was probably a vanguard in the Dobrudja and a rearguard
in Bessarabia. All that we know is that it was a country difficult of access and full of natural
fortresses, marshy and rocky—though the rocks may only be one of Nicephorus’s improvements.
Such a description might well be applied to the Danube delta and the country surrounding it. [2]
Wherever it was, it was inconveniently close to the lands of the Empire, those difficult Balkan
provinces where the Slavs were being gradually tamed. We cannot accurately tell the date of
Asperuch’s move to Oglos. It must have been a gradual affair, taking place between the years
650 and 670. [3] During these years the Empire was occupied in a sanguinary war with the Arabs
in Asia, and in Europe in the religious and diplomatic intricacies of the Monothelite controversy;
and in 668 the murder of the West-loving Emperor Constans by a chamberlain with a soap-bowl
was followed by a short rebellion. But by the year 679 the throne was secure and the Arab war
was ending. The Emperor Constantine IV, Pogonatus, the Bearded, was alive to the danger of
allowing new invaders into
1. Identified by Zlatarski (Istoriya, i., pp. 123 ff., 387 ff.), who discusses the question
convincingly. Additional difficulties have been created by a persistent attempt of historians from
Theophanes onward to derive Ὀγλος from the Slavonic âgul, ‘a corner’ (cf. the Greek ὀγλος , ‘an
angle or corner’). Really it can be equally well derived from agul, ‘an enclosure.’
2. See Zlatarski, loc. cit.: Theophanes, pp. 546-9: Nicephorus, pp. 33-5. Bury (Eastern Roman
Empire, p. 338) thinks that the earthworks of Preslav-on-the-Danube date from this occupation.
He is probably right.
3. The outside dates are 643 and 679.
27
the Balkans, to disquieten or, worse, to organize the Slavs. Asperuch’s Bulgar hordes must be
driven back or crushed.
And so the Imperial armies marched to the Danube; and there followed that campaign that was
ruined by the Kmperor’s sore feet—a euphemism, probably, for gout. The result was very
different from the Emperor’s hopes. The Bulgars, victoriously driving back the Imperial
invaders, themselves invaded the Empire. Their hordes overran the country as far south as Varna,
pillaging and making innumerable captives. And where they came they settled. They conquered
the Slavs that inhabited the countryside, and threatened the Imperial cities. The Balkan world
had been taken by surprise; it could effect no resistance. Thus, rapidly and unexpectedly, early in
the year 680, Asperuch founded modern Bulgaria, Bulgaria south of the Danube.
The Emperor bowed to fate. Shocked at the numbers of captives from his people, he hastened to
make peace. All the land beyond the northern slopes of Haemus as far as the Danube and the
Avar frontier (an unknown distance) was ceded to the Bulgar monarch; and he was further
promised a yearly tribute if he abstained from raiding the Empire—a humiliating concession, but
one according to the canons of Byzantine economy, which found tributes less expensive, on the
whole, than wars. [1]
The exact extent of Asperuch’s new kingdom is impossible to discover. South of the Danube its
eastern boundary was the Black Sea, its southern the Haemus (Balkan) range, and its western
probably the River Isker; but there was also considerable territory on the northern bank,
including Bessarabia as far as the River Dniester, and probably the bulk of the Wallachian plain.
Along
1. Theophanes and Nicephorus, loc. cit.
28
this vague northern line it abutted on to the Avar empire. [1] But it was to the south of the
Danube that Asperuch now transferred the seat of his government. Asperuch was not only a
conqueror, but also a statesman. From the first he saw that the success of his kingdom depended
on the Slav population. The Slavs of the north-east Balkans, haunted by the memory of the Avars
and a fear of the Imperial restoration, had submitted to Asperuch with a good grace, almost
welcoming him as a leader against the dangers. Asperuch made use of their compliance to
organize them, placing them in tribes along his various frontiers and controlling them from the
centre, where he built his palace of Pliska and held his Court.
Pliska was no more than a fortified camp, a collection of tents or rude habitations surrounded
with great earthworks. It was situated on the low, rolling hills that lie inland from Varna and join
the Dobrudja plain with the heights of Haemus. This district was the nucleus of the new
kingdom. It was probably cleared of the Slavs; their business was to provide padding along the
frontier. The relations between the Bulgars and their subject Slavs are difficult to decipher
clearly. It is highly unlikely that they blended all at once, as some Slavophil Bulgar historians
have maintained. It is also unlikely that the Bulgar invaders were the mere handful that they are
usually depicted to be. The tribe that settled at Oglos and so easily defeated a large, well-trained
Imperial army must have been, to judge from the Imperial historians’ accounts, a tribe of
considerable dimensions. It is impossible to lay down a dogma on the subject; but it seems that
round the edge of the Bulgar kingdom there were these Slav tribes, which kept their old
chieftains—we soon find a Slav aristocratic element at the Bulgar Court—but
1. See Zlatarski, Istoriya i., I, pp. 151 ff. I do not think that Asperuch extended his power as far
west as the Isker till after the 689 war.
29
were controlled by Bulgar commissioners: while in the centre was the Bulgar king, the Sublime
Khan, and his Bulgar officials and Bulgar armies. During the next century the Imperial
historians, when talking of the Bulgar wars, usually call the enemy the ‘Bulgars and Slavs,’
implying an alliance, but not a fusion; and at the end of the century we find Slavs fleeing to the
Empire for refuge against the Bulgars [1] — a movement that suggests that the Bulgars were not
yet a predominantly Slav nation.
Of the organization of the Bulgars themselves we are better informed. Like all the Finno-Turkish
tribes they had a clan system; and the Sublime Khan was actually only the most exalted of the
Khans, the chiefs of the clans. At present the house of Dulo, with its high Hunnish past, was
firmly established in the supremacy; but later, when the dynasty faded out, the dangers of the
clan system made themselves apparent. The two chief Ministers were called the kanarti (possibly
the same as the kavkan) and the tarkan; the latter, it seems, was in charge of the provincial
administration. The nobles were divided into two classes: the superior consisted of the boliars or
boyars—in the tenth century there were six boyars, but before Boris’s day they were probably
more numerous; the lower of the bagaïns. There were also other titles, such as the bagatur or the
koulourat; but their functions are unknown. During the ninth century the title of Khan was
changed to that of Knyaz, the Slavonic ‘prince’; but the other old Bulgar titles lasted till the fall
of the Bulgar Empire, and one even longer—the title boyar appears throughout the Slavonic
world. [2]
Asperuch lived on for more than twenty years after the invasion, organizing his realm. He was
not left entirely in peace. In 685 there succeeded to the Imperial throne a
1. During Constantine V’s Bulgar wars (see below).
2. I discuss the Bulgar titles in Appendix V.

30
fierce, restless youth, Justinian II. Annoyed at paying a tribute to the barbarians, he soon broke
the peace of 680, and in 689 invaded Bulgar territory—a land now called by the Imperial
chronicler ‘ Sclavinia and Bulgaria,’ the Bulgar kingdom and its Slav fringe. The Bulgars fled
before Justinian, and he turned and came down the centre of the peninsula to Thessalonica,
bringing great numbers of Slavs in his train, some of them captives, others gladly escaping from
Bulgar domination. All these he sent across to Asia to settle in the Opsician theme. A few years
later thirty thousand of them went out under his banners to fight the Saracens. Satisfied with his
good work, Justinian marched back through enemy country; but on the way the Bulgars
ambushed him. His army was routed, and he himself barely escaped alive back to
Constantinople. And so the Bulgars were left in peace. [1]
In 701, Asperuch died, fifty-eight years since his separation from his brothers. His successor was
Tervel, of the house of Dulo, his son, or perhaps his grandson. Tervel continued in Asperuch’s
path, quietly consolidating his kingdom: till once again, in 705, the sinister figure of the Emperor
Justinian II, an outlaw now, with his nose and his tongue slit, entered into Bulgar history. The
ex-Emperor, since his deposition in 695, had been living in exile at Cherson, and latterly at the
Court of the Khan of the Khazars, whose daughter he had married. But the Khan turned against
him and he had to flee for his life. Angrier and more determined than ever, he came to Tervel
and asked for help. Tervel was delighted; the troubled waters were admirable for an ambitious
angler. He placed his army of Bulgars and Slav vassals at Justinian’s disposal, and the two
monarchs marched on Constantinople. The walls of the city baffled them, and
1. Theophanes, p. 557: Nicephorus, p. 36.
31
the citizens within mocked at the ex-Emperor. But, after three days, Justinian crept in along an
aqueduct. His sudden appearance suggested treachery, or magic, or the undermining of the walls.
The city was seized with panic. The Emperor Tiberius fled; and Justinian was quickly
established in the palace and on the throne. He remembered his Bulgar benefactor; Tervel was
invited into the city, and, seated at the Emperor’s side, was given the title of Caesar.
The title is significant; but it is probable that the Emperor and the Khan interpreted it differently.
Caesar was the second rank in the Imperial hierarchy; but it was in the Imperial hierarchy, under
the Emperor. Tervel, in accepting the title, might seem to be acknowledging himself as being
under the suzerainty of the Emperor, almost the Imperial viceroy in Bulgaria. But certainly
Tervel intended no such thing. He was not versed in Byzantine history and etiquette. He merely
saw that the Emperor was willing—was almost obliged—to give him a high-sounding title and a
seat at his side; and he accepted it as a tribute to his power, that would raise his prestige in his
own country and over the whole world. His view of the transaction was strengthened by the fact
that Justinian gave him an immense amount of presents and ceded to his realm the small but
valuable district known in Slavonic as Zagoria, ‘Beyond the Mountains,’ the district that slopes
from the eastern end of the Haemus range down to the Gulf of Burgas. The towns on the Gulf,
however—Mesembria, Anchialus, and Develtus—remained in Imperial hands. Tervel had also
been promised the hand of the Emperor’s daughter; but she was still a little child, and the
marriage never took place. Bulgaria had to wait two more centuries for its first foreign queen. [1]
1. Theophanes, p. 572-3: Nicephorus, p. 41-2: Georgius Hamartolus, ii., p. 622. See also
Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., pp. 163 ff.
32
Meanwhile the Byzantine enjoyed the interesting spectacle of the Bulgar Khan distributing
largesse to his soldiers, and measuring the gifts of the Emperor with his barbaric whip. [1]
The peace was of short duration. Justinian, who never forgot his injuries, soon forgot his
benefits. In 708, no doubt because Tervel demanded more presents or tribute, Justinian prepared
to invade Bulgaria. His army encamped by Anchialus, where his fleet rode in the harbour. The
troops felt secure, and their discipline was slack: so that a surprise attack from the Bulgars utterly
routed them. Justinian himself took refuge in the citadel; after three days’ siege he escaped to his
ships and returned in disgrace to Constantinople. But Tervel seems to have won no material
benefit by his victory. Moreover, he showed a strangely forgiving nature; he sent three thousand
of his Bulgars to accompany Justinian in his flight to Bithynia in 711. They stayed with him till
his cause was desperate, and left him then to his death. [2]
Imperial troubles during the next few years gave Tervel fresh opportunities for interference. In
712, as though to avenge his friend Justinian, he invaded Thrace, ravaging as far as the Golden
Gate of Constantinople itself, and retiring laden with booty and unhurt. [3] In 716, when an Arab
invasion was imminent, the ephemeral Emperor Theodosius III sought to consolidate his position
by making a treaty with Tervel, the first Bulgarian treaty the terms of which we know. These
terms first fixed the frontier: which was to pass by Meleona—an unknown place that must be
some peak on the great Monastery range, such as the heights of Bakadzhik. Probably the frontier
now followed the line later fortified by the Bulgars
1. Suidas, Lexicon, p. 761.
2. Theophanes, pp. 575-6: Nicephorus, pp. 43-4, 47.
33
and known as the Great Fence of Thrace—a line running roughly for some miles from the
northern shore of the Gulf of Burgas in a west-south-west direction, through Bakadzhik to the
Maritsa. Farther west the country was too unsettled for a definite frontier to be drawn. The
second article of the treaty provided for a yearly payment by the Imperial Court to the Khan of
robes and skins to the value of 30 lb. of gold (about £1,350). The third provided for an exchange
of prisoners and the return of refugees, even refugees who were hostile to the present
Governments—the Imperial civil wars must have obliged many intriguers from the Empire to
take refuge in Bulgaria. The fourth article stipulated the free intercourse of merchants and
merchandise between the two countries, provided that the merchants had passports and seals;
those without passports were to have their goods confiscated. [1]
Theodosius barely outlasted the treaty; but his successor, Leo the Isaurian, apparently confirmed
it, through his ambassador, Sisinnius Rendacius. In 717, when the Arabs made their second great
siege of Constantinople, Tervel helped the Imperial defenders by making a raid, considerably to
his profit, on the Arab encampment. [2] But next year, after the Arabs had fled in rout, Tervel
grew less well-disposed towards the Emperor Leo, and even involved himself in an intrigue in
favour of the ex-Emperor, that emanated from Thessalonica and was supported by Sisinnius.
However, the affair amounted to nothing, and shortly afterwards Tervel died, in May 718. [3]
1. Theophanes, p. 775. He only refers to it retrospectively, when dealing with Krum’s wars, a
century later. He says it was made between Theodosius and the Patriarch Germanus, and
Cormesius (Kormisosh) of Bulgaria. Clearly Tervel is meant. With regard to the Great Fence,
which some historians think dates from this time, see Appendix VI.
2. Theophanes, p. 611: Cedrenus, p. 790: Zonaras, p. 726.
3. Theophanes, p. 615: Nicephorus, p. 55. The date of Tervel’s death is given in the List.
34
Tervel’s reign had been restless, and his policy variable and perverse. He was justified by his
achievements. His readiness to interfere helpfully in the internal troubles of the Empire, in spite
of the Emperors’ breaches of the peace, made him too valuable a figure in Imperial politics. In
those difficult years no Emperor could afford to embark on the natural course of stamping out
the aggressive barbarians. Justinian II, who alone made one short and disastrous attempt to do so,
did not dare to repeat the experiment, lest it might be successful and he lose his best support.
Meanwhile the indispensable Tervel improved his own position. His frontier was pushed farther
south over the Haemus to embrace Zagoria and to stretch even to the mountains of Rhodope.
How far west it ran we do not know; Sardica and Philippopolis were both Imperial fortresses, but
Bulgar influence was spreading; it was alarming that Thessalonican intriguers should be in close
touch with the Khan. But more alarming was the firmness with which the Bulgars were now
established in their home. The newly come nomads of thirty years before now ruled a kingdom
from beyond the Danube into Thrace, and ruled it in sufficient tranquillity to enjoy the blessings
of commerce. They were still distinct from the Slavs; and, except round their centre—which, it
seems, was more purely Bulgar—they were only the landowning, organizing aristocracy, similar
no doubt to the Normans that three centuries later were to order the backward Anglo-Saxons. But
a certain blending between the races was inevitable; though there yet remained many Slavs to
resent the Bulgar intrusion.
Of the details of this consolidation we are necessarily ignorant, but that it certainly existed was
proved by the story of the next half-century. For thirty-seven years after Tervel’s last intrigue the
Imperial chroniclers have nothing to tell of the Bulgars. Even the Bulgar List
35
cannot give us the name of his successor, who reigned for six years, till 724. There then followed
the Khan Sevar, till 739; but of him we know nothing, save that, like his predecessors, he was of
the family of Dulo. In him this great house, the House of Attila, died out. [1]
The end of the old reverend dynasty meant an era of civil wars. The Bulgar lords and boyars
were too jealous of each other to submit long to the rule of any one of their number. Moreover,
they were splitting into two factions. The one, misunderstanding Tervel’s policy, were all for
concord with the Empire and eyed longingly the comforts of Byzantine civilization. The other
hated the seductive luxuries and Imperial conceptions of Byzantium, and were determined on
war. The successor of the last Dulo was a boyar named Kormisosh, of the family of Vokil or
Ukil. Kormisosh belonged, it seems, to the Byzantine faction; for sixteen years, by maintaining
peace, he maintained himself on the throne, till, in 755, circumstances forced him into war.
Under the great Isaurians, Leo III and Constantine V, the Empire had been undergoing religious
schism but political re-organization, and the latter Emperor was now in a position from which he
could strike at his neighbours. The common people of Byzantium might mourn for their lost
images and surname their persecutor Copronymus, the Dung-named, but the army was devoted
to him; and he had made the army supreme in the State. In the year 755, Constantine had
transported large numbers of Armenians from Theodosiopolis and Syrians from Melitene to the
Thracian frontier, where he constructed fortresses for them, to be their homes and their defence.
The Bulgars demanded tribute and an indemnity on account of these new fortresses; their
construction was probably a breach
1. The dates and dynasties are to be found in the List (see Appendix II.).
36
of the Theodosian peace. [1] But Constantine dismissed the Bulgar ambassadors with contumely,
and so Kormisosh had to yield to the pressure of his war party, and invaded the Empire.
The Bulgars raided triumphantly as far as the Long Walls; but suddenly Constantine fell on them
and routed them utterly. Even during their headlong flight the Emperor inflicted heavy losses on
them. [2] The story of the ensuing campaign is a little hard to decipher; our two informants,
Theophanes and Nicephorus, disagree, the former’s account merely mentioning a terrible victory
of the Bulgars at Veregava in 759, the latter’s, the more detailed but less dated, telling of a
considerable campaign that followed on the 755 raid but was over by 762, culminating in an
Imperial victory at Marcellae. Neither chronicler appears to have heard of the other’s battle.
Nicephorus is the more convincing; it is necessary to follow his accounts interspersing dates and
a disaster at Veregava as best we may. It seems, then, that Constantine determined to follow up
his victory. Soon afterwards he took an army by sea to the mouth of the Danube, and, landing
there, marched down victoriously through Bulgaria, pillaging and making captives as he came,
and finally routed the Bulgar army near a fort called Marcellae, close to the Imperial frontier. [3]
This must have occurred during the years 756 or 757. In 758, as we know from Theophanes,
1. Both Nicephorus, p. 66, and Theophanes, p. 662, say that the Bulgars claimed tribute at the
sight of the new fortresses, Theophanes adding, ‘according to the πάκτα.’ I do not think it is
necessary to give as complicated an explanation as Lombard (Constantin V, Empereur des
Romains, p. 43) gives. It simply was a breach of the treaty, entitling the other party to
compensation. I believe that neither side was to fortify the frontier; and that is why the Fence
was not built by the Bulgars as yet.
2. Theophanes, p. 662, says that the Bulgar raid was successful, using almost the identical words
which he used to tell of the successful Bulgar raid of 712. Here he must be wrong; Nicephorus is
too positive.
3. Identified by Bury (Eastern Roman Empire, p. 339) as Karnobad. Zlatarski places it at

Bakadzhik (pp. 204-5).
37
Constantine was busy subduing the Slavs of the Thracian and Macedonian frontiers—they had
no doubt taken advantage of the war between their two overlords to aim at independence.
Constantine firmly reduced them to obedience. In 759 it is quite possible that Theophanes’s
battle of Veregava took place. Probably Constantine himself was not present, and that is why
Nicephorus ignores it. Nicephorus implies that Constantine had conquered a large number of the
tribes in Bulgaria; but by the end of the campaign it is clear that he did not still hold them. It is,
therefore, likely that he left behind an army of occupation, which, however, was heavily defeated
by the Bulgars as it passed through the defiles of Veregava, on the Diampolis-Pliska road, and
forced to evacuate the country. Among the dead were the strategus of the Thracesian regiment,
and many other distinguished soldiers. But, in spite of this reverse, whose importance
Theophanes probably exaggerated, the campaign had been highly favourable to the Emperor, and
the Bulgars were anxious to sue for peace, possibly forfeiting their tribute, and certainly
providing hostages. [1]
During these troubles, Kormisosh had died, in September 756, soon after the first defeat. It was
his successor, Vinekh (of the same family, probably his son) who had to bear the brunt of the
war. Its disasters were his undoing. His subjects supported him through it all, but the humiliating
peace exasperated them. At the close of 761 they rose up against him, and massacred him and all
the representatives of the house of Ukil; and in their place the throne was given to a sinister
boyar of the house of Ugain, called Telets, the leader of the war party. [2]
1. Theophanes, pp. 662-5: Nicephorus, pp. 66-7: see Lombard, op. cit., pp. 43 ff.
2. Dates given in the List: Theophanes, p. 667: Nicephorus, p. 69, also his Antirrhetici, p. 508.
38
Telets (whose age, we are told, was thirty) at once embarked on a vigorous policy, and forcibly
levied troops from among his subjects. This was not altogether agreeable to the Slavs, and in
consequence a horde of some 208,000 of them left Bulgaria to seek an asylum in the Empire.
The Emperors had always been glad to mix up populations so as to break down nationalism; and
Constantine received them gladly, allotting them a home in Bithynia, by the River Artanas.
The Khan began the war with an invasion of Thrace, during which he even captured some of the
frontier fortresses. Then, knowing that he would have to face reprisals, he took the precaution,
rare among the barbarians, of fortifying his frontier, and waited behind in a strong position with
a great army, to which he had added no less than 20,000 auxiliaries, chiefly Slav. But
Constantine was equally impressed by the seriousness of the war, and the Empire could
command better organized resources. First he dispatched an expedition by sea to the mouth of
the Danube (as he had done on his first campaign)— mainly a cavalry force, each boat carrying
twelve horses. Then, as his horsemen rode down through the Dobrudja, he marched up through
Thrace, and in June 763 [1] the armies met and encamped by Anchialus, the great Imperial city
at the head of the Gulf of Burgas. Telets attacked them there, on June 30, and a terrible battle
raged from daybreak to nightfall. The carnage was immense, but in the end the Bulgars were
routed. The
1. I agree with Zlatarski (Istoriya, i., 1, p. 213) in dating the battle of Anchialus 763 rather than
762, which Theophanes gives and which Lombard (op. cit., pp. 47-8) accepts. Theophanes dates
Telets’s revolution and the battle before the great winter of 762-3; Nicephorus dates them both
after; the natural deduction seems to me to be that the revolution, Telets’s first expedition (which
Theophanes does not mention), and the Slav emigration occurred in 762, but Constantine had to
wait till after the winter (which was severe enough to freeze the shores of the Black Sea) to start
his punitive campaign. Telets, as we know from the List, did not fall till the close of 764.
39
Imperial army was too heavily reduced to follow up the victory; so Constantine returned to his
capital, to hold triumphal games in the Circus and to slaughter ceremoniously his thousands of
captives. [1]
The disaster had crippled the Bulgars, but it did not break their spirit. Telets’s government
lingered on for a year discredited. It failed to repair the position, so eventually Telets was
murdered with the nobles of his party by his angry subjects. The throne was now given back as
nearly as possible to the annihilated dynasty of Ukil; Sabin, a son-in-law of Kormisosh, became
Khan. Sabin at once tried to negotiate with Constantine; but a peace was not at all to the temper
of the Bulgars. Accused of handing over the country to the Empire, he found it a necessary
precaution to flee to the Imperial city of Mesembria, where he threw himself on the protection of
the Emperor. In his place the Bulgars appointed a Khan called Pagan. [2]
Constantine received Sabin gladly, and even sent for his wives and relations from Bulgaria, thus
collecting the whole Bulgar Royal family at Constantinople. Meanwhile Pagan realized that
further war was impossible, and sent an embassy to the Imperial court. It was not received.
Instead, Constantine prepared a new expedition. Pagan was desperate; with his boyars he came
in person to Constantine to beg for clemency. Constantine received them with the ex-Khan Sabin
seated by his side, and harangued them sternly as rebels against their legitimate sovereign; but
making it quite clear that he considered their sovereign as his vassal. Peace was made, but, it
seems, at the price of Pagan’s deposition. We do not know if Sabin returned to Bulgaria, or if he
appointed
2. For the chronology of this period and for the sequence of the Bulgar Khans see Appendix II. I
believe that both Theophanes and Nicephorus (who disagree between themselves) are wrong,
and that Theophanes’s Paganus and Nicephorus’s Campaganus (Khan Pagan) are one person,
and Nicephorus’s Baianus quite separate.
40
a viceroy. According to the List, he died in 766, and was succeeded by his relation, Umar.
Meanwhile the Emperor was able to reduce the Slav brigands that had taken advantage of the
wars to frequent the Thracian frontier. [1]
Again the peace was of short duration. Umar’s reign only lasted a few months; before the end of
766 he was deposed by a certain Tokt, who, we are told, was the brother of Baian and a
Bulgarian. The latter epithet seems superfluous; probably it means that Tokt belonged to the
nationalist war party, as opposed to the pro-Greek house of Ukil. Constantine answered the
revolution with a fresh expedition, which found the frontier fortresses deserted, and over-ran the
whole country. The Bulgars that could escape fled to the forests of the Danube. Tokt and his
brother Baian were captured and put to death; the ex-Khan Pagan was killed by his slaves as he
attempted to escape to Varna.
For the next few years there was anarchy in Bulgaria; but the Bulgars nevertheless still resisted
the Emperor. His next campaign was apparently fruitless; he advanced, ravaging, only as far as
the River Tundzha, very close to the frontier, and then was obliged to retire, probably owing to
trouble at home. But he persevered, determined to administer the coup de grâce. Accordingly
(probably in 767) he set out again with vast preparations, and penetrated as far as the Pass of
Veregava. But the expedition was not as final as he had hoped; 2,600 transports that set out along
the Black Sea to bring additional troops to Mesembria were driven by the north wind on to the
coast of the Gulf of Burgas, and totally destroyed. Still, the Bulgars were glad to sue for peace,
and hostilities ceased for some five years. [2]
1. Theophanes, pp. 660, 673-4: Nicephorus, p. 70.
2. Nicephorus, pp. 70-3: Theophanes (p. 674), following his habit of recording for preference
Constantine’s unsuccessful actions, only tells of the Tundzha campaign. But there is no need,
therefore, to assume with Lombard (op. cit., p. 51) that he is lying; the second campaign
mentioned by Nicephorus (p. 71) was apparently abortive, and clearly Theophanes alludes to it,
not the previous campaign.
41
During these years—we do not know exactly when, for the List stops with Umar—a new, abler
Khan mounted the Bulgar throne, a certain Telerig, of unknown birth. By May 773 Telerig was
well enough established to alarm the Emperor. Constantine adopted his usual tactics. A fleet of
2,000 ships was sent to the Danube, where the Emperor disembarked, while the generals of the
themes invaded Bulgaria by land. When the Emperor in his southward march reached Varna, the
Bulgars in terror asked for peace. Constantine agreed, and returned to Constantinople, where the
boyar Tsigat came to discuss terms. But in October, while the negotiations were still going on,
Constantine was informed by his spies that Telerig was preparing an expedition of 12,000
soldiers under a boyar against the Berzetian Slavs, who lived in Thessaly, intending to deport
them into Bulgaria—probably the Bulgars were anxious to increase their population, depleted by
the war, and the Berzetians, kindred to their own Slav subjects, seemed the most amenable tribe.
But Constantine was too quick for them. Deceiving the Bulgar ambassador by pretending that he
was arming against the Arabs, he invaded Bulgaria with forced marches and, with an army
80,000 strong, fell on the Bulgars at Lithosoria, [1] and put them to flight without the loss of a
single man. His return to Constantinople was celebrated in a triumph, and the campaign was
surnamed the Noble War. [2]
The Noble War no doubt accelerated the peace. We
1. Probably the Blue Rock in the Balkan Mountains by the River Sliven (Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 1,
p. 232).
2. Theophanes, pp. 691-2. His chronology is obscure. The May campaign is given as being in
Ind. XII, and the Noble War which follows it in the text in October, Ind. XI. It does not seem
necessary to transpose the campaigns as Lombard does (op. cit., pp. 53 ff.); we know that peace
negotiations were proceeding at the time of the Noble War. It is simplest to assume that the Ind.
XI is a mistake for Ind. XII. The whole chronology is complicated by the fact that Ind. XII was
spread over two years, Sept. 772 to Sept. 774, so as to bring the Indictions into line with the
A.M., a divergence having crept in in 726, probably because the Emperor Leo III wished to
extort two years’ taxes during one year—see Bury, Appendix 10 to Gibbon’s Decline and Fall,
vol. v. pp. 524-5, and Hubert, La Chronologie de Théophane, B.Z., vol. vi., pp. 504 ft.—or
because for this period Theophanes was simply muddled between his two distinct schemes of
chronology. (Brooks, The Chronology of Theophanes, vol. viii., pp. 82 ff.) We no longer now
have Nicephorus to provide confirmatory evidence.
42
do not know its terms save that Khan and Emperor undertook never to invade the other’s
country. It was soon broken. Early in the next year (774) Constantine planned another combined
land and sea campaign, this time accompanying the land forces. The expedition was apparently
resultless; again the weather intervened and wrecked some of his ships: though Theophanes’s
story of an almost universal disaster is too like the previous story of the Anchialus wrecks to be
convincing. Theophanes was always impatiently eager to exaggerate the disasters of the heretic
Emperor. [1]
Later in the year Telerig outwitted the Emperor. Theophanes says that the Khan sent to
Constantine to tell him that he was likely to have to flee to Constantinople and to ask him who
were his trustworthy friends in Bulgaria. Constantine was simple enough to send Telerig in reply
a list of all his spies and agents in the country; and so Telerig was easily able to arrest and
execute them all, and utterly upset the Imperial intelligence department. It is a little unlikely that
an Emperor as invariably astute as Constantine Copronymus should play so naïve a rôle; but
certainly somehow Telerig managed to acquire the list of Imperial agents, and acted on it, to his
great advantage. [2]
The Emperor was furious, and once more roused himself to action. But, as he started out with his
ninth expedition, a terrible fever took hold of him, and he died

2. Ibid., p. 693.
43
in agony at the fort of Strongylus, on September 14, 775. [1]
Bulgaria had been saved again. Constantine’s campaigns had been a glorious chapter in the
history of Byzantine arms, and they had reduced Bulgaria very low. Her army had again and
again been routed, her population depleted; her Khans sat precariously on their throne. It surely
seemed as though another Constantine, or even another campaign, would be the end of her. And
yet the coup de grâce had so often been administered, and still the Bulgars lived on. Asperuch
and Tervel had rooted I hem too firmly for them now to be dislodged. And the disasters had
probably the result of binding them closer to the Slavs. We have seen how they forcibly sought
to encourage Slav immigration; and there was gradually rising a Slav aristocracy, that first
became evident early in the next century, and that must occasionally have inter married with the
Bulgars. Misfortunes have a unifying effect.
But, though the Bulgars could not be dislodged, they had certainly been subdued; it might be
possible to absorb them in the Empire, as so many other tribes had been absorbed. Even after
Constantine’s death their troubles did not cease. In 777 Telerig himself was forced to fly from
his country. He came to the court of the Emperor Leo IV, and there accepted baptism and was
accorded the honour of a Greek bride, a cousin of the Empress. Had the Empire been inclined to
intervene, then again Bulgaria might have been utterly reduced; but the Empire was weary and
still torn between iconoclast and iconodule. Bulgaria was so obscure a state now—even Telerig’s
successor is unknown—it would be safe to let her linger weakly till another opportunity arose.
The barbarians might remain in the Balkans; they were negligible.
1. Theophanes, loc. cit.

Book II THE GREAT POWERS OF EUROPE
CHAPTER I
An Emperor’s skull
The Empress-Regent Irene, of blessed memory, spent the spring of 784 in touring her northern
frontier. It was a felicitous time. Last year her general, Stauracius, had conquered the Slavs of
the Greek peninsula, forcing them into obedience to the Empire. Over the frontier everything
was quiet; Thrace, devastated by the wars of the last century, was being refilled with a busy
population transported from the East, Armenians—heretics indeed, but politically harmless so far
away from their kindred. And so the Empress, with music playing, made her Imperial progress
along to the town of Berrhoea, rebuilding it and rechristening it Irenupolis, and back to
Anchialus. [1]
Her mind was set at rest by what she saw. There could be no danger from Bulgaria. Indeed, two
years later, in September 786, when her son, the Emperor Constantine VI, was reaching maturity
and appearing dangerously popular with the army, she found it both wise and safe to deplete
Thrace of its militia on the plea of an Eastern campaign, so as to have the soldiers, under her
friend Stauracius, close by her side in Constantinople. [2]
But early in 789 there came an unpleasant shock. Philetus, strategus of Thrace, was reconnoitring
up the River Struma and had, it seems, entered territory which the Bulgars regarded as theirs. He
shared the confidence of the government and was marching carelessly. A sudden attack from the
Bulgars surprised him at a disadvantage. Many of his soldiers and he himself were killed. [3]
1. Theophanes, pp. 699, 707. This was the Thracian Berrhoea or Beroe (the modern Stara
Zagora), not the Macedonian Berrhoea.
2. Ibid., pp. 715-6.
3. Ibid., p. 718.
47
48
The Bulgars, then, were not utterly effete; they might usefully be attacked once more. In April
791 the young Emperor, supreme now and anxious for military glory with which to outshine his
mother’s popularity, decided to invade Bulgaria. A certain Kardam was on the Bulgar throne.
His antecedents and the date of his accession are unknown, but in him the Bulgars found at last a
ruler of some competence. However, this campaign was on all sides a fiasco. Constantine
advanced as far as a fort called Probatum on the River St. George. [1] There he fell in with the
Bulgars; and in the evening a light skirmish began. But during the night the Imperial armies were
seized with panic and fled: while the Bulgars, equally frightened, returned hurriedly to their own
districts. [2]
Constantine burned to do better, and set out again against Kardam in July next year. An
astronomer called Pancrat promised him a glorious victory. But Pancrat was wrong. Constantine
marched as far as Marcellae on the frontier and repaired its fortifications; but, as he lay close by,
on July 20 Kardam advanced on him with all the armies of his kingdom. The Emperor’s youthful
ardour and confidence led him to fight without due preparation; and he was heavily defeated. He
hastened back to Constantinople in ignominy, leaving his money, his horses, and his equipment
in the hands of the enemy, accompanied by shamefaced generals and the false prophet Pancrat.
[3]
After this disaster Constantine let the Bulgars alone. Meanwhile Kardam’s ambitions rose, and in
796 he sent insolently to the Emperor to demand tribute, threatening otherwise to ravage Thrace
right up to the Golden Gate. Constantine replied scornfully that he would not trouble an old man
to come so far; he would go to meet him at Marcellae, and God would decide what would
happen.
1. The modern Provadia, to the north-east of Adrianople.
3. Ibid., pp. 724-5.
49
But God was extremely indecisive. Constantine advanced in full force as far as Versinicia, near
Adrianople; Kardam, alarmed at the size of his army, hid in the forest of Abroleba. [1] For
seventeen days Constantine invited the Bulgars to give battle, in vain; and eventually each
monarch returned ineffectually home. [2]
Again a period of peace ensued. Whether a definite treaty was ever concluded is unknown.
Modern historians, who unanimously agree in decrying the Empress Irene, are apt to picture her
paying tribute to all her neighbours. [3] With regard to the Bulgars, there is no evidence for such
an assertion. The Empress certainly desired peace; in 797 she had finally rid herself of her son by
blinding him, and such strange maternal conduct lost her her popularity. The army had always
been hostile to her, and ecclesiastical support, though it might canonize her, did not help her in
foreign campaigns. But Kardam was equally anxious for peace. His timorousness during the
wars showed how unsure he felt of his position. Bulgaria was still turbulent and weak; he was
probably fully occupied in controlling his boyars and reorganizing his kingdom. And so both
countries were grateful for a respite, though neither could manage to extract a tribute.
But Bulgaria had recovered marvellously since the days of Constantine Copronymus. Freed from
concentrated attack by the discord in the family of its adversaries the Emperors, it had somehow
worked out its own salvation. Kardam might be insecure, but apparently he never fell. Had
Constantine VI possessed the ability of his grandfather and namesake, again the Bulgars might
have lapsed into feeble anarchy. But Kardam’s victories must have
1. Places identified by Zlatarski (Istoriya, pp. 244-5).

3. e.g. even Bury (Eastern Roman Empire, p. 339).
50
served to strengthen him in his own country, and by strengthening him to strengthen his whole
country. Had the statesmen of Constantinople turned their eyes to the north, instead of
wondering feverishly who would displace the heirless Empress, they might well have been
alarmed —terribly alarmed, for far worse was to follow.
Some time after the year 797 the Khan Kardam died, in the same obscurity in which he had
ascended the throne. The Empress Irene fell in 802; her white horses no longer drove through the
streets of Constantinople. In her place was her genial, dissimulating logothete, now the Emperor
Nicephorus I, eager to display the vigour of a man’s rule. He little guessed whither it would lead
him.
Far away to the north, in the plains and foothills of Pannonia, the Hungary and Transylvania of
to-day, the Avar Empire still lingered, and under Avar domination there still lived large numbers
of Bulgars, the descendants of those ancient Bulgars whom the Avars carried into captivity over
two centuries before, and of the fourth son of King Kubrat and his following. But in the closing
years of the eighth century a new power had spread to the Central European plains; the kingdom
of the Franks, masters of France and Germany, was seeking to safeguard its eastern frontier by
pushing its influence farther and farther down the Danube. In 791 and again in 795-6 the
Frankish King Charles—soon, in 800, to be crowned Emperor at Rome in defiance of
Byzantium—had invaded the territory of the Avars, supported by their restive Slav vassals. The
Avar resistance was feeble; by the end of the century the Frankish dominion reached the banks
of the River Theiss.
The Pannonian Bulgars took advantage of the situation. On the eastern bank of the Theiss they
completed the destruction of the Avars. The details are unknown; but by about the year 803 the
Avar Empire had utterly
51
disappeared. Instead, the Franks and the Bulgars met one another at the Theiss. The Frankish
Emperor had even contemplated moving farther eastward and destroying the Pannonian Bulgars;
but he desisted, assuming that without Avar help they would not be able to hurt his realm. He
could probably count on the Moravian or the Croatian Slavs acting as buffers for him.
The Bulgar chieftain that conquered the Avars was called Krum. [1] His origin is unknown.
From his apparent security on the throne throughout his life, it is tempting to see in him the scion
of an old-established royal race—for only monarchs of undoubtedly higher birth could long
maintain themselves over the jealous Bulgar boyars—the royal race of the Bulgars of Pannonia.
He may even have been a descendant of the fourth son of King Kubrat, a child of the House of
Attila. But more important than his birth were his ambitions and his ability. Krum was not going
to remain a Pannonian princeling. By the year 808 he was firmly placed upon the throne of
Pliska, Sublime Khan of Balkan Bulgaria.
How it happened we cannot tell. Probably the Balkan Bulgars had always kept in touch with
their cousins. Since Asperuch’s day the Khan of Pliska had controlled the plains of Wallachia
and Moldavia; and the Pannonian Bulgars in Transylvania were not far off; only the Carpathian
mountains divided them. On Kardam’s death, the Balkan Bulgars were left without a Khan. It
was probably easy for Krum, the splendid victor of the Avar wars, either by some show of arms
or only by persuasion, to transfer himself on to the greater throne, and thus unite
1. His name appears in various forms, in Greek Κροῦμμος, Κροῦμνος, Κροῦμος, Κυϊμος (once
in Leo Grammaticus, probably by error), Κροῦβος, and Κρέμ ; in Latin Crumnus, Crimas,
Brimas (both probably miscopied), Crumas, and Crusmas; in early Slavonic translations Kroum,
Krâg, Krem, Kreml, Krumel, and Agrum. On his inscriptions (Aboba-Pliska, p. 233—the
Shumla inscription) he Graecised his name as Κρουμος. Krum must therefore approximately
represent the original. See Zlatarski, Istoriya, p. 247.
52
the two Bulgar kingdoms into one great empire, from the Theiss and the Save to the shores of the
Black Sea. [1]
The effect of the union is difficult to gauge. Pannonian Bulgaria was a Bulgar state, not a Bulgar-
Slav state; in the double kingdom the Bulgar element, the aristocratic militarist element, must
have been proportionately enhanced. But Krum was too astute a monarch to allow the aristocracy
to wax too powerful; he probably countered by subordinating Pannonia to the Balkans and in the
Balkans encouraging the Slav elements. On the whole, the only important result of the union was
to increase the military strength and temper of the kingdom. The Balkan Bulgars had made a
poor show in the wars of the eighth century—the Slavs, who formed the bulk of their armies,
were by nature unenthusiastic and disorganized fighters—but in the ninth century Bulgaria was
one of the great militarist powers of Europe.
Kardam and Irene had both desired peace. Nicephorus wanted war; and Krum, with his new
strength and his Balkan ambitions, was ready to give him war. It broke out in 807. Hitherto
Nicephorus had been occupied with wars on his eastern frontier, but that year he had time to set
out against Bulgaria. The campaign was still-born; when he reached Adrianople he discovered a
conspiracy against him amongst his troops. He put it down with
1. This account of Krum’s early career is conjectural. Dvornik (Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome,
pp. 34-5) states it categorically, with embroideries and dates, but for once he gives no references.
However, his account is in the main certainly the only coherent interpretation of the evidence:
which is as follows: (i.) The Avars were utterly conquered by Krum (Suidas, Lexicon, art. ‘
Bulgari,’ p. 761). (ii.) Charles the Great attacked the Avars in 791 and 795-6 (according to
Ekkehard, he first attacked them in 788, and conquered them in eight years). After they were
utterly conquered, he withheld his hand from the Bulgars as being unlikely to be harmful, now
that the Avars (Huns) were extinct (Ekkehard, p. 162). It is only reasonable, therefore, to assume
that Krum’s conquest of the Avars was before their utter extinction. But in 796 Kardam was still
Khan of Balkan Bulgaria; we do not hear of Krum there till 808 (see below). Krum must,
therefore, have been ruler of Pannonian Bulgaria before he ascended the throne of Pliska. But the
date of his accession must remain unknown.
53
severity, but thought it wise not to proceed farther; and so he returned to Constantinople. [1]
Next year the Bulgars took the offensive: Nicephorus, suspecting their designs on Macedonia,
had mustered an army in the theme of Strymon. Late in the winter, so late that no attack seemed
likely, the Bulgars surprised this force, slew the strategus of the theme and annihilated many of
the regiments, and captured 1,100 lb. of gold destined to pay the soldiers. [2]
In the spring of 809 Krum followed up his victory by a far more harmful move. There was a
strong line of Imperial fortresses barring the Bulgar advance on the south and the south-west—
Develtus, Adrianople, Philippopolis, and Sardica. They had probably been reconditioned by
Constantine Copronymus, who saw their strategic importance. To the Bulgars they had always
been an irritant, particularly Sardica, lying as it did across their road to Serbia and to Upper
Macedonia. In March Krum suddenly appeared before Sardica. The fortifications were too strong
for him, but somehow his guile won him an entrance. The garrison, 6,000 strong, was massacred,
with numberless civilians, and the fortress dismantled. It does not seem that Krum intended to
annex the district, but merely to make Sardica untenable as an Imperial fortress.
On the Thursday before Easter (April 3) Nicephorus heard the news, and left his capital in full
strength. By forced marches he pushed into the enemy country, and on Easter Day reached the
undefended city of Pliska. Pliska paid the penalty for Sardica; Krum’s palace was plundered, and
the Emperor wrote a triumphant letter to Constantinople announcing his arrival in the Bulgar
capital. It had been a triumphant feat of the Imperial armies; the
2. Ibid., p. 752. See Bury (Eastern Roman Empire, p. 340) for exact dating. The amount 1,100 lb.
is the equivalent to nearly £50,000.
54
pious chronicler Theophanes, who strongly disapproved of Nicephorus, decided indeed that he
was lying when he claimed to have achieved it. From Pliska, Nicephorus marched on to Sardica,
to rebuild the fortress; whether deliberately or by chance, he did not meet Krum’s returning army
on the way. At Sardica the Emperor had certain difficulties; the soldiers disliked having to work
as masons, and were suspicious of his subterfuges to induce them to do so. However, in the end
their mutiny was quashed; Sardica was cheaply and quickly rebuilt, and the Emperor returned
complacently to Constantinople. [1] But there had been one more distressing incident. A few
officers from the Sardica garrison had escaped Krum’s massacre and had come to Nicephorus.
He, however, would not promise not to punish them—he probably suspected, with reason, that
there had been treason somewhere; so the officers fled to the Bulgar court (thus more definitely
hinting at their guilt), where Krum received them gladly. Amongst these refugees was the
celebrated engineer Eumathius—a welcome acquisition for the Bulgars, for he taught them all
the artifices of up-to-date warfare. Later, Theophanes tells us a fuller and quite different tale of
Eumathius, who was an Arab; Nicephorus had employed him at Adrianople, but had
remunerated him with parsimony—Nicephorus was always anxious to do things inexpensively—
and had, further, struck him when he complained; the touchy Arab promptly deserted. Both
stories may be true; Eumathius, who was always
1. Theophanes, pp. 752-4: Bury (op. cit., p. 341) assumes that Theophanes was acting from
malevolence in casting doubt on Nicephorus’s arrival at Pliska; most other historians—e.g.
Zlatarski (op. cit., pp. 252-3) or Dvornik (op. cit., p. 36)—believe Theophanes implicitly—
Dvornik even adds a successful Bulgar attack. Bury must surely be right. Theophanes took every
opportunity for decrying Nicephorus, and, though a saint, he was not above telling lies to
discredit Emperors of whom he morally disapproved. Nicephorus, on the other hand, was not a
half-wit; he would not have claimed to have penetrated to Pliska when the whole army could
have shown him up as an impostor.
55
employed in repairing fortresses, was working at Sardica at the time of Krum’s invasion, and
was tempted by bis grievance into treachery. Certainly somehow, by his tactlessness, Nicephorus
had handed over a valuable asset to the Khan. [1]
The Bulgar ambitions for Macedonia still disquieted the Emperor; and through the next winter he
carried out extensive transportations. The Macedonian Slavs were unreliable; he attempted to
keep them in control by settling among them colonies of faithful peasants from Asia Minor, the
backbone of his Empire. The Anatolian peasants did not appreciate this policy; some even
committed suicide rather than leave their homes and the tombs of their fathers. But Nicephorus
was inexorable; the situation, he thought, was urgent, and he prided himself on the way in which
he dealt with it. The transportations were not, however, on a vast enough scale to be really
effective. [2]
But the Emperor had already decided to crush Krum absolutely, for ever. His preparations were
long and careful; troops were collected from throughout the Empire. There was no danger from
the Saracens at the moment; so the armies of the themes of Asia Minor came with their strategi
to swell the host. In May 811 the great expedition left Constantinople, led by the Emperor
himself and his son, Stauracius.
At Marcellae, on the frontier, Nicephorus paused for reinforcements to join him. Krum was
seriously frightened, and sent an embassy to Marcellae begging humbly for peace. The Emperor
dismissed the Bulgar ambassadors; he was distrustful of Bulgar promises and confident of
victory. But while he was still at Marcellae one of his household suddenly disappeared, with 100
lb. of gold
1. Theophanes, pp. 753 (he is here called Euthymius), 776.
2. Ibid., p. 755.
56
and part of the Imperial wardrobe; they soon heard that he had gone over to Krum. The omen
was disquieting —were the rats leaving the sinking ship?
In July the Imperial armies entered Bulgaria and pushed straight on to Pliska. Krum fled before
them, and on July 20 [1] they reached the Bulgar capital. Nicephorus was in a fierce mood, and
devastated the whole city, massacring and burning, and even passed Bulgar babies through
threshing-machines. The Palace of the Khans perished in the flames—it was probably a wooden
affair—and on their treasury Nicephorus set the Imperial seal, intending avariciously to reserve
the treasure for himself. Again Krum sent to plead for peace, saying: ‘Lo, thou hast conquered.
Take what thou wilt and depart in peace.’ But the triumphant Emperor was proud and obdurate
again.
Krum was in despair; but Nicephorus’s carelessness gave him another chance. The Bulgar forces
fled to the mountains; and Nicephorus followed. On Thursday, July 24 the Imperial army was
caught in a narrow mountain defile, and the Bulgars swiftly built wooden palisades at either end.
Too late Nicephorus saw the trap into which he had fallen, and knew that destruction was
certain. ‘Even were we birds,’ he said, ‘we could not hope to escape.’ On the Thursday and
Friday the Bulgars worked hard at their fortifications. On Saturday they paused; perhaps they
had decided to wait and starve the great army out. But their impatience overcame them; late that
night, the 26th, they fell upon the enemy.
It was an unresisting butchery. The Imperial army, taken unawares, allowed itself to be
massacred wholesale. The Emperor and almost all his generals and high
1. Theophanes said that Nicephorus only entered Bulgaria on July 20. But, as the great battle
took place on the 26th/27th, he must surely have arrived at Pliska not later than the 20th, having
journeyed some seventy miles of difficult country since crossing the frontier.
57
dignitaries perished—some killed in their tents, others burnt to death by the firing of the
palisades. The Emperor’s son, Stauracius, was wounded, fatally wounded, though he lingered in
agony for several months. With his brother-in-law, Michael Rhangabe, one of the few unhurt
survivors, and the tiny remnant of the army, he fled headlong to the safety of Adrianople.
Nicephorus’s head was exposed on a stake for several days, for the delectation of the Bulgars;
then Krum hollowed it out and lined it with silver. It made him a fine goblet when he drank with
his boyars, crying the Slav toast of’ Zdravitza.’ [1]
Relics of the battle lasted for many centuries. In 1683 a Serbian patriarch saw at Eskibaba, in
Thrace, the tomb of a certain Nicholas who had gone with the army and dreamed a warning
dream. The Turks had placed a turban on the head of the corpse. [2]
The news of the disaster came as an appalling shock to the whole Imperial world. Never since
the days of Valens, on the field of Adrianople, had an Emperor fallen in battle. It was a
stupendous blow to the Imperial prestige—to the legend of the Emperor’s sacrosanctity, so
carefully fostered to impress the barbarians. Moreover, the Visigoths that slew Valens had been
mere nomads, destined soon to pass away to other lands; the Bulgars were barbarians settled at
the gate, and determined—more so now
1. Theophanes, pp. 761-5. He dates the battle July 25; but that was the Friday. The
Saturday/Sunday night was the 26th/27th. It is impossible to discover exactly where the battle
took place. Shkorpil (Aboba-Pliska, p. 564) suggests the Pass of Verbitza, and the defile locally
known as the Greek Hollow, where tradition asserts that many Greeks once met their death; and
Bury (op. cit., p. 344) follows him. This, I think, is the most convincing location. Jireček
assumed that it was in the Pass of Veregava, on Nicephorus’s return home (Geschichte der
Bulgaren, pp. 45-6, and Die Heerstrasse, p. 150). But it seems that he took a different route,
pursuing Krum rather than retreating. Zlatarski (op. cit., pp. 408—12) does not commit himself
definitely, but believes that it took place much nearer to Pliska. But, as he accepts Theophanes’s
statement (see above) that Nicephorus only entered Bulgaria on July 20, he is very hard up for
time, and cannot afford to let Nicephorus march the thirty miles from Pliska to the Pass of
Verbitza.
2. The Patriarch Arsen Cernovič, quoted by Bury (op. cit., p. 345).
58
than ever—to remain there. The Empire would never live down and forget its shame; and the
Bulgars would ever be heartened by the memory of their triumph.
Krum had good reason to be exultant. The whole effect of Constantine Copronymus’s long
campaigns had been wiped out all at one battle. He could face the Empire now in the position of
conqueror of the Emperor, on equal terms, at a height never reached by Asperuch or Tervel.
Henceforward he would not have to fight for the existence of his country, but he could fight for
conquest and for annexation. Moreover, in his own country his position was assured; no one now
would dare dispute the authority of the victorious Khan. He could not have done a more useful
deed to strengthen the Bulgar crown. [1]
Sated by their victory, the Bulgars did not at once follow it up with an invasion. Constantinople
was given a respite, while the dying Emperor Stauracius made way for his brother-in-law,
Michael Rhangabe. [2] But late next spring (812) Krum attacked the Imperial fortress of
Develtus, a busy city at the head of the Gulf of Burgas, commanding the coast road to the south.
It could not hold out long against the Bulgars. Krum dismantled the fortress, as he had done at
Sardica, and transported the inhabitants, with their bishop and all, away into the heart of his
kingdom. In June the new Emperor Michael set out to meet the Bulgars; but the news that he was
too late to save the city, together with a slight mutiny in his army, made him turn back while he
was still in Thrace. [3]
1. The Kadi-Keui inscription given in Aboba-Pliska, pp. 228-30, belongs somewhere to

Nicephorus’s war with Krum. It mentions Nicephorus, Marcellae, Adrianople, and a certain
Bulgar called Ekusous ( Ἐκούσοος) or Ecosus (Ἠκόσος). The text is too badly mutilated for the
sense to emerge. Probably it refers to Nicephorus’s first campaign, the abortive campaign that
never went further than Adrianople. See Bury, op. cit., p. 343.
2. Michael the Syrian (pp. 25-6) pretends that Stauracius was wounded during a Bulgar invasion
after Nicephorus’s death. He was clearly misinformed.
59
His inaction and the Bulgar victories terrified the inhabitants of the frontier cities. They saw the
enemy overrunning all the surrounding country, and they determined to save themselves as best
they could. The smaller frontier forts, Probatum and Thracian Nicaea, were abandoned by their
population; even the population of Anchialus and Thracian Berrhoea, whose defences the
Empress Irene had recently repaired, fled to districts out of reach of the heathen hordes. The
infection spread to the great metropolis-fortress of Western Thrace, Philippopolis, which was left
half-deserted, and thence to the Macedonian cities, Philippi and Strymon. In these last cities it
was chiefly the Asiatics transported there by Nicephorus that fled, overjoyed at the opportunity
of returning to their homes. [1]
But Krum did not take full advantage of all this. With a caution and forbearance rare in a
barbarian conqueror, he sent instead to ask for peace; he wished, it seems, to consolidate
carefully his every step. In September 812 his ambassador, Dargomer—the first unmistakably
Slav name to appear in Bulgar official circles—came to the Emperor demanding a renewal of the
treaty of 716, the treaty made between Tervel and Theodosius III. Bulgaria was to recover the
Meleona frontier and the 30 lb. worth of skins and robes; prisoners and deserters were to be
returned, and organized trade-intercourse to be reopened. [2] Krum, however, knew that he had
the upper hand; he threatened that if the peace was not granted to him he would attack
Mesembria. After some consultation the Emperor rejected the peace; he could not bear to give up
the Bulgar deserters. It had always been a cardinal point
2. See above, p. 33. As I said there, the name Cormesios is clearly a mistake of Theophanes.
Krum would obviously want, and feel able, to return to the state of affairs before the disaster of
the war with Copronymus. There had probably been some truce with Kormisosh that had
distracted Theophanes.
60
in Byzantine diplomacy to collect and support foreign pretenders and refugee statesmen; and
Michael probably hoped to have that clause withdrawn. But Krum was for everything or nothing.
Faithful to his threat, he appeared in full force before Mesembria in the middle of October.
Mesembria was one of the wealthiest and most important cities in all South-Eastern Europe. It
was not only a salubrious spa, but also a great commercial centre, both as port of embarkation for
the produce of Eastern Bulgaria and also as the port of call for all vessels bound from
Constantinople to the Danube and the northern shores of the Black Sea. In addition, nature and
art alike had made it a magnificent fortress. It occupied a small peninsula, at the northern
entrance of the Gulf of Burgas, joined to the mainland only by an isthmus about a quarter of a
mile in length, so low and narrow that in storms none of it was out of reach of the foam. [1] This
natural stronghold had been further strengthened by huge fortifications.
A vigorous defence could have saved the city. Krum had no ships; he could only attack along the
isthmus. The Imperial navy could have poured in reinforcements and food in spite of all the
Bulgars. But the Isaurian Emperors had economized on naval armaments; there was now hardly
any Imperial navy. The garrison, caught unprepared, had to shift for itself; the Emperor did not
even attempt to revictual the city. Krum, on the other hand, was helped by the engineering skill
of the deserter Eumathius.
Krum’s prompt fulfilment of his threat had alarmed the government at Constantinople. On
November 1, Michael summoned a council. He himself was in favour now of peace, but was not
strong enough to impose his will on his counsellors: these were sharply divided into two
1. Nowadays the whole isthmus is covered by the waves during bad storms, but then there was
probably an efficient causeway.
61
parties, led, as was characteristic of the times, by clerics —Theodore, Abbot of Studium,
favouring war, and the Patriarch Nicephorus, the historian, eager for peace. The war party won,
on the same clause about deserters, supporting their policy by talking of the fundamental
principles of Christian hospitality, and mocking at the peace party’s readiness to pay tribute.
Four days later, their victory was clinched; news came through of the fall of Mesembria.
Krum found his capture highly profitable. Not only was Mesembria well stocked with luxuries
and large quantities of gold and silver, but also the Bulgars discovered some of the most precious
and secret of all Byzantine inventions, the liquid ‘Greek Fire,’ and thirty-six syphons from which
to fire it. Krum removed his spoils, then, following his usual course, he dismantled the
fortifications and retired to his home. [1]
The Emperor was now obliged to plan an expedition to avenge the disgraceful calamity. Next
February two Christians, who had escaped from Bulgaria, told him that Krum was making ready
to invade Thrace. Michael busily collected troops from all over his Empire; in May he set out,
with a huge army, chiefly Asiatic. The Empress Procopia saw the army off, with encouraging
messages, from the aqueduct near Heraclea. But the Empress’s send-off was of little avail. For a
month Michael dallied in Thrace, never attempting to recover and repair Mesembria, while the
Asiatic troops grew increasingly restive. Early in June, Krum crossed the frontier, and the two
armies came face to face at Versinicia. At this spot Kardam had hidden in the woods from
Constantine VI; but Krum was bolder, and prepared for a pitched battle. For fifteen hot summer
days each army waited for the other to move; at last the general in charge of the Thracian and
1. Theophanes, pp. 775-8: Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 12-13.
62
Macedonian troops on the left wing of the Imperial army, John Aplaces, begged to be allowed to
attack. The Imperial army outnumbered the Bulgars by ten to one; and Imperial troops
notoriously could deal with barbarians when it came to an open fight. Michael gave him
permission, and on June 22 John Aplaces began the battle. The Bulgars fell back in confusion
before his attack: when suddenly he found that he was fighting alone—the rest of the army had
fled in inexplicable panic, led by Anatolic troops on the right wing. Krum, we are told, was too
astounded and suspicious to pursue at once; but he soon found that the flight was genuine. After
annihilating the brave, deserted troops of Aplaces, he followed the fugitives as they ran headlong
all the way back to their capital. It was an amazing battle: the only explanation was treachery in
the Imperial forces—in the Anatolic regiments. The general of the Anatolic regiments was Leo
the Armenian, and it was Leo that gained most by the battle: Michael gave up the crown, and it
passed to Leo. Under the circumstances Leo was inevitably suspected, though nothing definite
could be proved—he was playing his cards too cunningly. But Krum also was privy to the plot.
He had taken the risk of a pitched battle against vastly superior forces in open ground—a risk
taken by no Bulgarian before or after for centuries; it is incredible that on this unique occasion he
should have been so rash and foolish—should have put himself into a position where only a
miracle could save him, had he not been certain that the miracle would occur. And it was by
arrangement rather than from surprise that he did not at once pursue the fugitives. [1]
1. Theophanes, pp. 780-3: Scriptor Incertus, pp. 337 ff. Bury (op. cit., pp. 351-2) fully discusses
Leo’s treachery. His conclusion, that Leo was guilty but too clever to be definitely compromised,
is, I think, absolutely convincing. But it seems to me that, to make the story credible, Krum must
be implicated in the plot.
63
The victory might be an arranged affair; but Krum had no qualms about following it up. Thrace
was denuded of troops, and his progress was easy. Leaving his brother to besiege Adrianople on
the way, he pushed on with his army, aiming at nothing else than the Imperial capital itself. On
July 17 his army arrived at the city walls.
The huge fortifications daunted him; instead of ordering an assault, he resorted to spectacular
displays of his might. Curious and horrified citizens on the walls could watch men and animals
being sacrificed on heathen altars, they could see the Sublime Khan washing his feet in the
waves of the sea and ceremoniously sprinkling his soldiers, or moving in state through rows of
adoring concubines, to the raucous acclamation of his hordes. Having indulged in sufficient
barbaric pageantry, he sent to the Emperor demanding to be allowed to affix his lance to the
Golden Gate, in token of his triumph. The Emperor, the ambitious traitor Leo the Armenian,
refused the insulting request; so Krum set to work more practically. Fortifying his camp with a
rampart, he plundered the countryside for several days. Then he sent again to the Emperor,
offering peace, probably on the basis of the famous peace of Tervel, but insisting specially on a
large tribute of gold and of robes and a selection of young maidens for his personal use. Leo now
saw an opportunity for a solution of his troubles.
The episode that followed is deeply distressing to our modern sense of honour, and patriotic
Balkan writers have long seen in it an example of the perfidy and degradation of Byzantium. But
we live now in a godless age. In the ninth century every true and devoted Christian regarded the
heathen either as animals or as devils, according to their capacity for inflicting evil on the
faithful. According to diese standards Krum, ‘the new Sennacherib,’ [1]
64
was a very arch-devil; any means of ridding the Christian world of such a monstrous persecutor
would be highly justified. We should remember, too, that Krum himself did not disdain to use
guile on more than one occasion; only we have been spared the exact details.
Leo answered Krum’s overtures by suggesting a meeting between the two monarchs on the shore
of the Golden Horn, just outside the walls; Krum would come by land and Leo by boat, each
with a few unarmed followers. Krum accepted, and next morning rode down to the spot,
accompanied by his treasurer, by his brother-in-law, a Greek deserter called Constantine
Patzicus, and by his nephew, Constantine’s son. Leo and his friends arrived in the Imperial
barge, and the conversation began, presumably with Constantine as interpreter. Suddenly an
Imperial official, Hexabulius, covered his face with his hands. Krum was offended and alarmed,
and leapt on to his horse. At that moment three armed men burst out from a neighbouring house
and attacked the little group of Bulgars. Krum’s followers were on foot; pressing round to defend
their master and escape themselves, they were easily disposed of. The treasurer was slain and the
two Patzici captured. But Krum, the main object of the stratagem, escaped. Darts were fired at
him as he galloped away, but only wounded him lightly. He reached his camp in safety, vowing
destruction. The pious citizens of Constantinople were bitterly disappointed. The failure was due
to their sins, they said.
The next few days were spent in Krum’s fiery vengeance. All the suburbs of the city, not only
those close outside the walls, but also the rich towns and villages on the far side of the Golden
Horn and up the European shore of the Bosphorus, studded with churches and monasteries and
sumptuous villas, all were committed to the flames. The Palace of Saint Mamas, one of the finest
of the
65
suburban homes of the Emperor, was utterly destroyed; its ornamented capitals and sculptured
animals were packed up in wagons to decorate the Khan’s palace at Pliska. Every living creature
that they found the Bulgars slew. The devastation spread wider as the Khan began his journey
homeward. On the road to Selymbria every town and hamlet was destroyed; Selymbria itself was
razed. The dreadful destroyer moved on. Heraclea was saved by its strong walls, but everything
outside them perished. The Bulgars had levelled the fort of Daonin; they went on to level the
forts of Rhaedestus and Aprus. There they rested ten days, then went south to the hills of Ganus.
The miserable inhabitants of the countryside had fled there for refuge; they had to be hunted out,
the men to be butchered, the women and children and beasts to be sent to captivity in Bulgaria.
Then, after a short destructive excursion to the Hellespont, Krum turned north to Adrianople.
The great fortress was still holding out against the Khan’s brother. But Krum brought with him
machines to apply against the walls. The garrison was starving; it knew that no relief would
come now. From necessity it surrendered. The city was destroyed and deserted. All the
inhabitants, to the number, it was said, of 10,000, were transported away to the northern shore of
the Danube. There they lived in captivity; and Manuel, their Archbishop, and the most steadfast
of his flock met with martyrs’ crowns. The Imperial government regretted now its obduracy and
tricks. It begged the Khan for peace; but Krum was implacable. He had too much to forgive. [1]
1. Theophanes, pp. 785-6. He closes his history with the capture of Adrianople: Scriptor Incertus,
pp. 342-4, giving the most detailed account: Theophanes Continuatus, p. 24: Genesius, p. 13:
Ignatius, Vita Nicephori, pp. 206-7. The captivity and martyrdom of the Adrianopolitans, is told
in the Vita Basilii (Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 216-17), Menologium Basilii Imperatoris, pp.
276-7, and Georgius Monachus Continuatus, p. 765.
66
In these dark days men prayed and hoped in Constantinople that Constantine Copronymus would
arise from the grave, to smite the Bulgars as he had been wont to smite them. The resurrection
was denied them; but the Emperor Leo vowed to be a worthy substitute. He set out from
Constantinople with his army soon after Krum retired, but did not attempt to follow him, taking
instead the road along the Black Sea coast; his object was to rebuild Mesembria. Close to
Mesembria he met the Bulgar forces—probably just a detachment of Krum’s army; Krum was
not, apparently, there in person. The district had been frequently devastated of recent years, and
the Bulgar army was hard up for supplies. Leo, on the other hand, being in touch with the sea
and his ships, was amply provided for. Finding out the Bulgar difficulties, he resolved on a
stratagem. He retired secretly with some picked troops on to a hill. The rest of the army suddenly
saw that he had disappeared and began to be panic-stricken. The news spread to the Bulgars,
who thereupon determined to attack. But Leo warned his army in time; so that they stood their
ground when the Bulgars came. Leo was then able to swoop down from his hill and take the
Bulgars in the rear. It was a triumph for the Imperial army; not a Bulgar escaped. Leo was able to
advance into Bulgaria, and devastate the countryside, sparing adults, but, with sinister foresight,
slaying the children, dashing them against the rocks. The Bulgars were deeply ashamed by their
defeat. The hill where Leo lay in ambush was long called Leo’s hill, and Bulgars passing by
would point at it and sadly shake their heads. [1]
But Leo’s success was of little value. During the following winter, which was unusually mild
and dry, a
1. For discussion of this campaign, whose existence Zlatarski and others deny, see Appendix
VII.
67
Bulgar army of 30,000 men crossed the low rivers and sacked Arcadiopolis (Lule Burgas). On
their return they found that a week’s rain had flooded the River Ergenz, and they had to wait till
the river subsided and then build a bridge. But during this delay Leo did nothing, so his critics
said, to attack them. They returned safely to Bulgaria with their 50,000 captives and their wagon-
loads of gold and apparel and Armenian carpets. [1]
Shortly afterwards worse news came to Constantinople. Krum was planning a far greater
vengeance on the city that had treated him so treacherously. He was determined to destroy it,
beginning his attack on the quarter of Blachernae, whence had been fired the darts that wounded
him. The tales of his preparations caused men to gasp with horrified astonishment—tales of the
hordes collected by the Khan, Slavs from ‘all the Slavonias,’ and Avars from the Pannonian
plain; of the vast engines that the Khan was constructing, catapults of all sizes, and stones and
fire to hurl in them, besides the tortoises and rams and ladders that featured in every big siege; of
the thousand oxen feeding in the Khan’s great stables, and the five thousand iron-bound wagons
waiting there. Leo hastened to put his capital in a fit state of defence, and set about building a
new wall outside the Blachernae quarter, where the Bulgar assault was expected and the
fortifications were weak. [2] He even sought diplomatic aid. It was perhaps the news that Krum
was collecting troops even in Pannonia that reminded the Imperial statesmen that Bulgaria could
be attacked in the rear from Germany. In the year 814 ambassadors from Constantinople set out
for the court of the Western Emperor Louis, to ask for help against the barbarous Bulgars. They
arrived before him in August; but it seems that they met
1. Scriptor Incertus, pp. 346-7.
2. Scriptor Incertus, p. 347.
68
with no response. Louis had his own barbarians to fight. [1]
But by then the danger was past. The hand of God had intervened. On Holy Thursday, the 13th
of April, 814, Krum broke a blood-vessel in his head, and died. [2]
Krum had remade Bulgaria. Kardam had shown that the Bulgars had only been crippled, not
conquered, by the wars of Copronymus; but Krum had altered the whole status of his country.
His first achievement, of uniting the Pannonian with the Balkan Bulgars, had given both of them
new life. And then he had embarked on a career of spectacular, terrible triumph. He had slain
two Emperors in battle and caused the fall of a third. Of the great Imperial fortresses on the
frontier he had captured and destroyed four and caused the inhabitants of the two others to flee in
terror. [3] He had even seriously threatened the Imperial capital; and repeatedly he had beaten
the best Imperial armies. Bulgaria, the dying state of half a century before, was now the greatest
military power in Eastern Europe.
But Krum had not only asserted so alarmingly the independence of Bulgaria by force of arms; he
was also, it seems, a great internal organizer. The details of his work are lost, but an echo has
come down to us in a story given by the tenth-century encyclopaedist Suidas. Krum, he says,
after conquering the Avars, asked his Avar captives the reason of their Empire’s fall. They
answered that they had lost their best men through various causes, jealousy and accusations
between one another, collusion between thieves and judges, drunkenness, bribery, and
dishonesty in their commercial dealings, and a passion
1. Annales Laurissenses Minorts, p. 122: the arrival of the Greek embassy immediately follows
an event dated August.
2. Scriptor Incertus, p. 348. Bury (op. cit.) dates it the 14th; but that was a Friday.
3. Sardica, Develtus, Mesembria, and Adrianople were destroyed, Anchialus and Philippopolis
deserted.
69
for law-suits. Krum was profoundly impressed, and promptly issued laws to prevent such things
in Bulgaria: first, when a man accused another of some crime, the accuser had to be well
questioned before the trial took place, and, if he were shown to have invented the accusation, he
was to be executed; secondly, hospitality to thieves was punishable by confiscation of all the
host’s goods, while thieves were to have their bones broken; thirdly, all vines were to be rooted
up; and finally men were to give sufficiently to the needy poor, under the penalty of the
confiscation of their goods. [1] It is highly doubtful that Krum’s legislative activity was as
simple as Suidas says; but obviously he introduced innovations along these lines. All these laws
were simplifications of the paternalist legislation which the Emperor used to give to his people,
and very different in their conception from the laws that would occur in an aristocratic state such
as Bulgaria had been. Krum, modelling himself, like all progressive Bulgars, on the Empire, was
aiming at an almost theocratic supremacy, such as the Emperor enjoyed among his subjects.
Krum apparently furthered this policy by encouraging his Slav subjects as opposed to the
Bulgars, the aristocracy. It has always been the habit of autocrats to divert their aristocracies
from political into military positions; the Byzantine Emperors, when later an aristocracy arose in
the Empire, followed that policy; in Western Europe in more modern times it was the policy of
statesmen such as Richelieu. So the Bulgars had to confine themselves to the army or to military
governorships in the outposts of Empire [2]; they were better fighters than the Slavs, and they
were useful there. But for his political work and in the high positions at Court he employed
Slavs. His only
1. Suidas, Lexicon, p. 762.
2. The soldiers whose deaths are commemorated in the tablets found by the Dnieper and the
Theiss (see below, pp. 81, 83) have Bulgar names, Onegavon and Okorses.
70
ambassador whose name we know was a Slav, Dargamer; and the boyars with whom the Khan
feasted drank to a Slav toast, ‘Zdravitza.’ [1]
Indeed, it was in this internal organization that Krum was of most service to his country.
Contemporary and modern historians have been so dazzled by his startling military triumphs,
that they have failed to realize his true significance. Krum’s wars were fought for a defensive
aim. He was not an ambitious conqueror; in spite of his victories, he never asked for more than
the Meleona frontier, the frontier that Tervel had enjoyed. There were tales of his ambitions in
Macedonia, but they never amounted to anything. When he captured the great Imperial fortresses
he never attempted to hold them; he merely destroyed them and retired. He knew that the Empire
would always resent an independent kingdom in the Balkans; he therefore hoped to safeguard his
independence by carrying the attack into Imperial territory. But, till his last year, when he was
burning for vengeance, he would have welcomed a peace that recognized his freedom and gave
him a small tribute (to help both his finances and his prestige) and left him time to organize his
country. But in the treaty he must insist on being returned his deserter-subjects; he must have all
the unruly elements under his power, so that he could crush them. Barbarian though he was, with
his ostentation and craft and cruelty, his concubines, his human sacrifices, and his cup that was
an Emperor’s head, the Sublime Khan Krum was a very great statesman; and his greatness lies,
not in being the conqueror of Emperors, but in being the founder of the splendid Bulgarian
autocracy. As it was, his wars distracted him; he did not quite have time enough. The khanate
trembled a little and was troubled when the great Khan died.
1. See above, p. 57.
CHAPTER II
Excursion into the West
The sudden disappearance of their terrible ruler took the Bulgars by surprise. Krum left a son,
called Omortag; but Omortag was young and inexperienced. [1] It seems that the Bulgar
aristocracy took advantage of Krum’s death to revolt against his dynasty. We hear of three
bоyars that wore the crown about now: Dukum, who almost at once died, Ditzeng and Tsok, the
latter two both cruel men who persecuted the Christian prisoners from Adrianople. But no more
than that is known of them. Probably they were only the leaders of rebel factions and parties that
for a short while controlled the government at Pliska. [2]
In any case, their rule was brief. Well before the end of 815, Omortag was firmly seated on his
father’s throne. His first action was to make peace with the Empire. He had not had experience
as a warrior himself; it would be wiser to rest upon his father’s laurels and to use their
1. The forms Ὠμορτάγ, Ὠμουρτάγ, Ὠμυρτάγ, and Ὠμουρτὰγ occur in his inscriptions. The
Greeks call him Ματράγων, Μοραάγων, and Ομβριτάγος (twice in error Κρυτάγων and
Κουτράγων); the Latins, Omortag and Omartag. See Zlatarski, op. cit., pp. 292—3. That
Omortag was Krum’s son (not brother, as Dvornik (op. cit., p. 39) says) is definitely stated by
Theophylact, Historia XV Martyrum, p. 192, and implied by Malamir’s Shumla inscription (see
below, p. 295). Theophylact (loc. cit.) makes Omortag directly succeed Krum; and Theophanes
Continuatus (p. 217) implies so.
2. Tsok is only mentioned in the Menologium of Basil II as having succeeded Krum and
persecuting Christians (Menologium, pp. 276-7); Dukum, who died, and Ditzeng, who
persecuted Archbishop Manuel, are only mentioned in a fourteenth-century Slavonic prologue to
the Menologium, p.392 (see Bibliography). Tsok, however, is probably the Tsuk that appears in
a very mutilated inscription found near Aboba dated 823/4 (Aboba-Pliska, pp. 226-7)—the sense
is undecipherable; it may record Omortag’s triumph over the usurper. I am inclined to believe
with Loparev (Dvie Zamietki, p. 318) that all three were merely military leaders, and not to
identify Ditzeng with Tsok (as Bury does, op. cit., p. 359) or Dukum with Tsok (as Zlatarski, op.
cit., pp. 424-5).
71
72
reputation in securing beneficial terms. He appears to have instituted preliminary negotiations

that amounted to nothing [1]; the Emperor Leo was contemplating a campaign against the
weakened Bulgars—a monk Sabbatius, prompted no doubt by the devil, had promised him a
victory against them were he to reintroduce iconoclasm. [2] But this brilliant campaign never
took place. Instead, some time in the winter of 815-16 the Khan and the Emperor concluded a
Thirty Years’ Peace.
The Imperial historians barely noticed the treaty; but the Khan was pleased with his diplomacy,
and caused the terms to be inscribed on a column in his palace at Pliska. The column is
overturned and chipped now, but it still tells how the Sublime Khan Omortag, wishing for peace
with the Greeks, sent an embassy to the Emperor (τὸν βασιλέα), and how the peace was to last
thirty years. The frontier was to run from Develtus, between the two rivers, and between Balzene
and Agathonice to Constantia and to Macrolivada and to the mountains—the name of the range
is mostly erased. Secondly, the Emperor was to keep the Slav tribes that had belonged to him
before the war; the others, even though they might have deserted, were to belong to the Khan and
be sent back to their various districts. Roman (Imperial) officers were to be bought back at a
special tariff according to their rank, common people were to be exchanged man for man, and
there was a special arrangement for Imperial soldiers captured in deserted citadels. [3]
1. If Bury is right (op. cit., p. 360) in placing the much-mutilated Eski Juma inscription (Aboba-
Pliska, p. 228) here, it vaguely suggests negotiations.
2. Genesius, p. 13: Theophanes Continuatus, p. 26, and in more detail in the Epistolae Synodicae
Orientalium ad Theophilum, p. 368. This may refer to Leo’s 813 campaign, which was
successful, but I think it belongs a little later.
3. The Suleiman-Keui inscription, which has been the subject of an article by Zlatarski (see
Bibliography), gives the reasons for my view of the treaty and the Great Fence in Appendix VI.
The Greek historians, Genesius, p. 41, and Theophanes Continuatus, p. 31, mention that a thirty-
year peace was concluded—Genesius mentioning Omortag (Motragon) by name.
73
These latter terms were what might have been expected—the Bulgars winning on that deserter
clause that had ruined Krum. But the frontier needs elucidation. The two rivers were probably
the Tundzha and the Choban-Azmak; Baltzene is unknown; but Agathonice has been identified
as the village of Saranti, while Constantia is the village of Kostuzha, both near Kavalki and the
Sakar mountains. Macrolivada was the present village of Uzundzhova, near the junction of the
western River Azmak with the Maritsa. [1] The semi-nameless mountain range was almost
certainly the Haemus; that is to say, at Macrolivada the frontier turned sharply to the north, to the
Haemus and to the Danube, leaving Philippopolis and Sardica outside the frontier. This was, as
Omortag said, the old frontier, [2] the frontier which Tervel had won exactly a century ago;
indeed, the whole treaty was in the main a recapitulation of the famous treaty of 716. But there
was a difference. Omortag had advanced as far as he wished on the side of Thrace. His main
interests were elsewhere; he only wanted to safeguard this frontier. Accordingly the Bulgars dug
a great ditch and on its northern side built a great rampart all the way from the neighbourhood of
Develtus to Macrolivada. All along this earthen wall, called by the Greeks the Great Fence, and
now known as the Erkesiya, Bulgar soldiers kept a constant watch.
But so vast a work could not be carried on with hostile forces just across the frontier. It is almost
certain that some clause in the treaty provided for the erection of such a ‘fence’ without
interruption from the Imperial forces. It is noticeable that, of the great Imperial fortresses that
guarded the frontier before the war, only Mesembria and Adrianople, both of them commercial
as well as military
1. Identified by Zlatarski, Izviestiya, pp. 67-8: Shkorpil’s identification of Constantia (Aboba-

Pliska, loc. cit.) with Kostenets, near Trajan’s Gate, is unlikely and unsupported by any
evidence.
2. ’ περὶ τῆς παλαιῆς ἱνα ἐστίν . . . κτλ. ’
74
metropoles, were re-occupied and rebuilt by the Emperor. The other fortresses—Anchialus,
Develtus, Philippopolis and Sardica—though they were not handed over to the Bulgars, [1] were
left deserted, and were easily annexed by the Khan a few decades later. Already the Great Fence
intercepted the main road from Adrianople to Philippopolis; and the isolation and desertion of
the two western fortresses enabled Omortag to dispense with a ‘fence’ along this western
boundary of his Balkan kingdom. Probably even now Bulgar statesmen were contemplating
expansion on that side; a ‘fence’ built to-day, tomorrow would be useless. [2]
To mark the solemnity of the peace-treaty, both the Khan and the Emperor agreed to pledge their
word according to the rites of the other’s faith. To the scandal of the pious Christians of
Constantinople, the Emperor, the Viceroy of God, poured water on to the earth, and swore on a
sword and on the entrails of horses and sacrificed dogs to the false idols of the Bulgars. It was
almost worse when the heathen ambassadors fouled by their touch the Holy Gospels and called
on the name of God. Men were not surprised when plagues and earthquakes followed on the
heels of these monstrous impieties. [3]
Omortag, however, was genuinely for peace in the Balkans. Bulgaria’s existence had been
guaranteed by the weapons of Krum; it was time now to enjoy the gifts of civilization that the
nearness of Byzantium would give. Throughout his reign the Thirty Years’ Peace was faithfully
kept by the Khan. Only once did the Bulgar armies
1. See Appendix VI.
2. For about half a mile, near Bakadzhik, there is a second ‘fence’ a little to the south, curving in
front of the other, known as the Gypsy Erkesiya—the legend being that the ‘Tsar’s’ troops were
called away and they ordered the gypsies to carry it on; but the gypsies carelessly diverted the
direction, which the soldiers corrected when they returned (Aboba-Pliska, pp. 542-3).
3. Ignatius, Vita Nicephori, p. 206: Genesius, p. 28: Theophanes Continuatus, p. 31. See
Zlatarski, Istoriya, pp. 434—4.
75
march southward from the Great Fence; and that was to help an Emperor.
In the year 823 the Emperor Michael II was beleaguered in Constantinople by the army and the
fleet of the arch-rebel Thomas, so desperately that he even was arming the Saracen captives in
the city. In his straits he would welcome anyone to help him. It was here that the Khan
intervened. Some said that Michael sent to Pliska asking for aid, which was granted him. Others
told a longer story; it was Omortag that began the negotiations, asking to be allowed to
intervene. Michael refused; he could not, he said, employ heathens to shed Christian blood. But
his refusal was put down by gossip to economy; the Bulgars wished to be paid—and, in any case,
it would be a violation of the Thirty Years’ Peace. But Omortag thought the opportunity for
interference and for plunder too good to be missed; he crossed the frontier all the same—and
Michael assuredly was privy to it, forgiving the breach of the treaty in return for the help, and
granting him freely what booty he could obtain. The Bulgar army crossed the Fence and marched
past Adrianople and Arcadiopolis towards the capital. The rebel Thomas learnt of their coming;
reluctantly he drew his troops away from the siege and went out to meet the new foe. The
Bulgars waited for him at Ceductus, the aqueduct where the Empress Procopia had waved
farewell to her hapless husband before the field of Versinicia. At the battle of Ceductus the
rebels were badly beaten; the bulk of Thomas’s army was destroyed. The Bulgars made their
way back to the north laden with spoils. And Michael was saved. [1]
Omortag utilized this rare Balkan peace to create other
1. Georgius Hamartolus, p. 796: he says that Michael asked for Bulgar help. Genesius, pp. 41-2,
and Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 64-6, give the longer story, the Continuator adding the touch
about Michael’s economical motive in refusing aid.
76
buildings beside the Great Fence. It was probably in the last years of his father’s and the first
years of his reign that the palace of Pliska, whose ruins we can trace to-day, was built. The great
quadrilateral camp some two miles by four, surrounded with its rough rampart and pierced with
eleven gates, probably dates from the early years of the Bulgar occupation. But the town had
twice been destroyed by the Emperor during the wars of Krum; the present inner citadel probably
post-dated these wars. It consisted of a trapezium-shaped fortification, with circular bastions at
the four angles, double rectangular bastions guarding the four gates, and eight other bastions.
Inside was the dwelling-place of the Khans, a great hall, almost square but trisected with
columns, and with an apse for the throne, raised above the ground on a high substructure. It was
no doubt in this hall that Krum placed the columns and sculptures that he carried off from the
Palace of Saint Mamas. Close to the palace stood the heathen temple of the Khans, later to atone
for its past by becoming a Christian church. [1]
But one palace only was insufficient for the glory of the Sublime Khan. At Transmarisca, on the
Danube, where the modern Turtukan still guards one of the easiest passages across the river,
Omortag made a house of high renown, [2] a strong palatial fortress to watch the northern
approach to his capital. He was still living at his old palace at Pliska at the time [3]; and, with
morbid symmetry, half-way between his two earthly halls he built a third house where he should
lie for eternity—a splendid sepulchre, whose erection he commemorated on an inscribed column,
that later builders determined to utilize;
1. Aboba-Pliska, pp. 62 ff, 132 ff. This palace was almost certainly built—probably by Greek
artisans—in the early ninth century.
2. ‘ Ἐπ(οίη)σεν ὑπέρφ(η)μον (οἶ)κο[ν] (εἰ)ς τὸν Δανοῦβιν. ’
3. ‘ (εἰ)ς τὸν παλ(αι)ὸν (οἶ)κον αὑτου μέν(ων). ’
77
and now the heathen monarch’s sentiments are to be read in one of the churches of Tirnovo. [1]
In the autumn of the year 821 the Khan built another fortress-palace, farther to the south of
Pliska, guarding the approaches from the Great Fence. Again he recorded his creation on a
column that was found at the village of Chatalar. [2] ‘The Sublime Khan Omortag,’ it says, ‘is
divine ruler [3] in the land where he was born. Dwelling in the camp of Pliska [4], he made a
palace [5] on the Tutsa and increased his power [6] against the Greeks and the Slavs. And he
skilfully made a bridge over the Tutsa. [7] . . . And he set up in his fortress four columns, and
between the columns two bronze lions. May God grant the divine ruler that he press down with
his foot the Emperor so long as the Tutsa flows and the enemies of the Bulgars are controlled
[8]; and may he subdue his foes and live in joy and happiness for a hundred years. The date of
the foundation is in Bulgarian shegor alem, and in Greek the fifteenth indiction.’ The name by
which Omortag knew this palace, which he founded in September 821,
1. For the Tirnovo inscription see Aboba-Pliska, p. 553: Uspenski, O Drevnistyakh Goroda
Tyrnova, pp. 5 ff.: Jireček, op. cit., 148 ff.: Bury, op. cit., pp. 366-7: Zlatarski, Istoriya, pp. 325-
30, 444—7. Uspenski, Jireček (rather incorrectly), and Zlatarski all give the full text. Uspenski
places the tomb at the mound of Mumdzhilar, but Zlatarski, more convincingly, at the village of
Ikinli-fount, on the present Roumanian frontier.
2. For the Chatalar inscription see Aboba-Pliska, pp. 546 ff.: Bury, op. cit., pp. 368-9: Zlatarski,
op. cit., pp. 319-25, and esp. pp. 441-4.
3. ‘ ὲκ θεού ἄρχ(ω)ν ’.
4. ‘ τ(ῆ)ς πλ(ύ)σκας τὸν κά(μ)πον ’.
5. ‘ αὐλ(ὴ)ν ’.
6. Zlatarski’s reading, ‘ Μείζω ἐποίησε ’ makes much more convincing sense than Uspenski’s ‘
ἐπῆγε, ’ or Bury’s ‘ ἔδειξε. ’ Zlatarski professes to be able to read the ‘Μ.’
7. After Tutsa there follows ‘ Μετ . . . ’ Uspenski reads ‘ μετ[ηνεγκεί ’; Bury accepts it very
doubtfully. Zlatarski reads ‘ μετ[όπισθεν τὴν αὐλὴν. ’ This seems to me to be too long, though
better sense.
8. According to Zlatarski, who reads:
‘ κ(αὶ) [ἑ] (ω)ς [ἀντιστά
τοὺς πολ[λ]οὺς Βουλγάρ(ου)ς ἐπέ[κη. ’
I am doubtful about it, but Uspenski reads even more dubiously:
‘ καὶ [δ]ωσ[η αἰχμαλώ
τοὺς κτλ. ’
78
has not come down to us; probably it was some Bulgar equivalent of the phrase ‘of high
renown.’ But soon it came to be called by its Slav name, and to feature in Balkan history as
Preslav, Great Preslav, the glorious. [1] The words of the inscription show clearly that Preslav
was intended to awe the Slavs of the southern frontier and the Greeks, the Emperor and his
subjects, that lived beyond. Furthermore, they show that the Emperor, despite the Thirty Years’
Peace, was still the Khan’s traditional foe, the foe whom most he feared and most he longed to
subdue.
At the moment, however, the Khan was at peace with the Empire—was even borrowing from it
the trappings of his culture. The inscriptions in which he glorified his works were written in
Greek, not the elegant Greek such as was used by the citizens of Constantinople, but a rough,
ungrammatical language—written no doubt by captives who had, forcibly or from their own
choice, remained on in the Khan’s dominions. Greek was still the only language in Eastern
Europe that possessed an alphabet; for writing, Greeks or natives of the Greek-speaking Empire
had to be employed. These scribes of the Khan, in the middle of the Bulgar formulae, add to the
title the Sublime Khan, ‘ κάννας ὐβιγη, ’ the Imperial formula ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ ἄρχων, the divine
ruler—though the Khan was far from approving of the Christian God. [2] The architects of the
new palaces were also probably Greeks. Of the Danubian palace no traces have been unearthed,
and the original buildings of Preslav are lost beneath the later ruins; but Pliska shows very
markedly the influence of Byzantine
1. Preslav is a fair translation of the Greek ‘ ὑπέρφημος ’ or ‘ πάμφημος ’ that occur on the
Bulgar inscriptions.
2. They, of course, only gave him the title of ‘ ἄρχων, ’ ‘ Βασιλεύς ’ was reserved for the
Emperor, and ‘ ῥήξ ’ for Western rulers. The formula does not mean that the Khan paid any
respect to the Christian God; it is purely a formula.
79
architecture, suggesting both the Triconchus and the Magnaura in the great Imperial Palace. [1]
But though he encouraged Greek artisans, Omortag firmly discouraged their religion.
Christianity was creeping in to Bulgaria in a manner most alarming to him; he could not but
regard it as a subtle means of propaganda on the part of the Emperor, the viceroy of the Christian
God. It was only later that the Khans realized from their dealings with the West that one could be
Christian without necessarily obeying the Basileus. There was another self-appointed viceroy,
who dwelt in Italy; and in the north there were Christians who sometimes doubted the
viceroyalty of either. Accordingly, Omortag persecuted Christians, as he would have persecuted
Imperial spies. The Imperial captives must have propagated Christianity fairly widely, and
among the Slavs (though not among the warlike Bulgars) there must have been many converts.
Already under Krum and during the brief reigns of the rebel bоyars the Christians had suffered
much. Krum had deported the Christians of Adrianople, with many hardships, to beyond the
Danube; though, on the whole, he was fairly tolerant. Ditzeng mutilated the arms of the
Archbishop Manuel. Tsok was far more uncompromising; he was said to have ordered the
Christian captives, lay as well as clerical, to renounce their faith, and when they refused to have
slain them all. Omortag, though less violent, was equally minded. Under his rule the maimed
Archbishop Manuel finally met his death [2]; and he was
1. The rather different, almost Iranian, spirit of the stele of the horseman found at Madara is
probably due to an Armenian artist.
2. Ditzeng’s persecution is mentioned in the Slavonic Prologue (loc. cit.), Tsok’s in the
Menologium (loc. cit.). The author of the Menologium says that Manuel had his arms cut off and
was killed by Krum; whereupon the Bulgars, in disgust, strangled their inhuman ruler. This may
refer to Ditzeng’s mutilation of his arms, and to the sudden fall of Ditzeng or another of the
boyar Khans, the pious author having muddled and united the stories to give them a moral tone.
That Manuel was actually killed by Omortag is stated in Theophanes Continuatus, p. 217.
80
also probably the Khan who, according to Theodore of Studium, ordered all Christians to eat
meat in Lent. Fourteen refused; so Omortag killed one as an example and sold his wife and
children into captivity. But the rest remained obdurate, so all were slain. [1] Even a captive
called Cinamon, whom Krum had given to Omortag, and to whom Omortag was deeply attached,
was thrown into prison for his persistency in remaining Christian, and remained there till
Omortag’s death. [2]
Both these architectural and these anti-Christian activities were part of the same policy, the
aggrandisement of the power and prestige of the Khan. In this Omortag carried on his father’s
work, and, like Krum, probably furthered it by encouraging the Slavs against the Bulgar
aristocracy. There is no more evidence for the internal state of Bulgaria under Omortag; but it
seems that in the Balkans the two races were by now mixing. In the lower classes the Slavs were
easily able to absorb the few Bulgars; it was only in the upper classes that there was still a
distinction. The Bulgar nobility, the almost feudal military caste, was untainted, while the Slav
nobility, brought forward by Krum, was a court nobility with no hereditary basis, made or
marred by the whim of the Khan. Of the state of affairs beyond the Danube we know even less.
Here there was not the same solid Slav background. On the plains of Wallachia and Bessarabia,
and in the mountains of Transylvania, there was a conglomeration of mongrel tribes—Slavs,
Avars, and Vlachs—clinging in places to the Latin speech and culture left behind by Trajan’s
Dacian colonists, but wild and disorganized. Over these peoples the Khan ruled, it seems, by a
system of military outposts that controlled the districts
1. Theodore Studites, Parva Catechesis, pp. 220 ff.
2. Theophylact, op. cit., pp. 193 ff.

81
around; and where possible, as in Bessarabia, a Great Fence guarded the frontier. [1]
It was to these northern frontiers that Omortag directed the attention of his diplomacy and his
arms. A memorial tablet set up by the Khan tells of his servant the zhupan Okorses, of the family
of Tzanagares, who met his death in the waters of the Dnieper when proceeding to the Bulgar
camp. [2] Things had changed on the Steppes since two centuries ago the sons of Kubrat had
spread Bulgarias from the Danube to the Volga and the Kama. The Khazar power was declining,
and fierce new tribes were pouring in from the east. About the year 820 the Magyars advanced
beyond the River Don, striking for ever a wedge between the two great Bulgar stems. It was
against this danger that the army which Okorses never reached went out beyond the Dnieper. It
achieved its objects. For a few more years the Magyars stayed outside of the frontier.
But the main scene of Omortag’s foreign policy lay further to the west, where the Bulgar frontier
ran from the fortress of Belgrade up the River Theiss. Over this frontier lay the struggling
kingdom of Croatia, and its oppressor the great power of the West, the Frankish Empire. The rule
of the Sublime Khan lay heavily on the tribes that lived in this corner of his dominions, and they
determined to search for relief.
In the year 818 the Emperor Louis the Pious was holding his Court at Heristal; and amongst the
embassies that waited on his pleasure was one from the Slavs of the Timok (just south of
Belgrade) and the Abodriti, a Slav race to the north of the Danube, just opposite. These tribes
had
1. Aboba-Pliska, pp. 524-5. Rivers seem to have been able to take the place of fences. Actually
in Omortag’s day the Theiss and the Dnieper appear to have been the frontiers. In the Responsa
Nicolai, Chapter xxv., we learn how much the Bulgars valued their entrenchments.
2. Aboba-Pliska, p. 190: Zlatarski, Edin ot Provadiiskitie Omortagovi Nadpici, pp. 94-107.

82
revolted from the Khan and wanted help. Louis was not sure what policy he should adopt in the
East; so the Timocians, in despair, threw in their lot with Liudevit, the Prince of Pannonian
Croatia, who also was represented at Heristal and who seemed likely for a moment to found a
realm free from Frank and Bulgar alike. [1] But Liudevit’s triumphs were ephemeral; by 823 he
had died in exile, and his country was in the hands of the Franks. Omortag was alarmed by the
growth of Frankish power. He had, it seems, reconquered the Timocians; but the Abodriti and
the Predenecenti (the Branichevtzi, just across the Danube to the Abodriti) were airing their
independence and intriguing with the Franks. [2] He decided that he must free his hands to deal
with them by coming to an arrangement with the Western Emperor. In 824, for the first time in
history, a Bulgarian embassy made its way to Germany, bringing a letter from the Khan to
propose a delineation of the frontier. [3]
Louis, with his customary caution, sent the embassy back accompanied by his own legates,
including the Bavarian Machelm, to find out more about this country of Bulgaria. Meanwhile, he
received another embassy from the rebel Slav tribes. Late in the year the Bulgarian ambassadors
returned—with Machelm, no doubt, who by now had informed himself as to the state of
Bulgaria. But Louis was leaning towards the rebels now; he kept the Bulgars waiting nearly six
months before he received them at Aachen, in May. The audience was unsatisfactory; the
embassy was dismissed with a very ambiguous letter to the Khan. Omortag patiently tried once
more. In 826 a third embassy reached the Emperor, and requested him either to agree to regulate
the frontier at once, or,
1. Einhard, Annales, pp. 205-6. Liudevit was, it seems, secretly supported by the Eastern
Emperors (Dvornik, op. cit., p. 49).
2. Ibid., p. 209, in 823.
3. Ibid., p. 212.
83
anyhow, to come to an undertaking that each Power would keep within its own borders—the
Khan was determined that his rebel Slavs should not go flirting with the Franks. But yet again
Louis was non-committal. He professed to have heard a rumour that the Khan had died, and sent
to the Eastern frontier to find out more about it. But no news was forthcoming; so Louis
dismissed the Bulgar ambassador without any answer. [1]
Omortag’s patience was exhausted. In 827 he invaded Frankish Croatia. His boats sailed from
the Danube up the Drave, spreading destruction. The Slavs and other tribes on its banks were
cowed into submission, and agreed to accept Bulgar governors. [2] His attack took the Franks by
surprise. In 828 Baldric of Friuli, the governor of the frontier, was deposed for his incompetence
in permitting the Bulgar invasion, [3] and that same year the young King Louis, the German, led
an expedition against the Bulgars. [4] But he achieved nothing; in 829, as in the previous two
years, the Bulgars devastated Pannonia once more. [5] The Khan had asserted his power in a
very definite manner; the German court was better informed now. The war dragged till after
Omortag’s death; peace was concluded in 832, to the satisfaction of the Bulgars. [6] Their
frontier was guaranteed, and their position and prestige among the Slavs was assured.
We are only told definitely of the Bulgar campaigns on the Drave; but Bulgar armies had also
been operating on land. Another memorial was erected by Omortag for his tarkan, Onegavon, of
the family of Kubiares, who was on his way to the Bulgar camp when he was drowned in the
waters of the Theiss. [7]
1. Einhard, Annales, p. 213: Astronomus, Vita Hludovici, pp. 628-9: Fuldenses Annales, p. 359.
2. Einhard, p. 216.
3. Ibid., Ioc. cit.
4. Fuldenses Annales, p. 359.
5. Ibid., p. 360.
6. Annalista Saxo, p. 574.

7. Aboba-Pliska, pp. 190-1.
84
Omortag did not long survive his tarkan. When he built his tomb he caused to be written the
words: ‘Man dies, even though he lives nobly, and another is born; and let the latest born, seeing
this, remember him who made it. The name of the Prince is Omortag, the Sublime Khan. God
grant that he live a hundred years.’ [1] But God did not grant the Khan so lengthy a life. He died
in 831, [2] after a reign of fifteen years—a short reign for a Bulgar ruler; but in its course he had
shown the world, the West and the East alike, that Bulgaria was now to be numbered among the
great Powers of Europe.
Three sons survived Omortag, called Enravotas, Svinitse, and Malamir. It was the youngest,
Malamir, that succeeded to the throne; his mother must have been the Khan’s favourite wife. [3]
A veil of mystery hangs over Malamir’s reign; all its happenings and their dates can only be
completed by conjecture. It is even possible that the reign was two reigns, and that Malamir,
after five years, gave place to a Khan Presiam. [4] But that is unlikely. It seems, on the other
hand, that Malamir reigned for twenty-one years, years of the highest importance in the history
of Bulgaria.
Malamir’s reign opened in peace. The Thirty Years’ Truce with the Empire had still some fifteen
more years to run; while in Pannonia the Franks had been awed by Omortag’s invasions. Of
Bulgarian history during these peaceful years we know nothing. Even inscriptions are very rare.
All we learn from them is of the death from illness of a boyar called Tsepa, and that the Kavkan
1. The Tirnovo inscription, closing words. See p. 77.
2. I accept Zlatarski’s date for his death—Istoriya, p. 317, Izviestiya, p. 34. See Aboba-Pliska, p.
236.
3. Theophylact, op. cit., p. 192.
4. I discuss the Malamir-Presiam problem in Appendix VIII.
85
Isbules, who appears elsewhere as the Khan’s chief general, built for Malamir an aqueduct at his
own expense, whereat the Khan gave a series of feasts to his aristocracy. Probably Malamir was
engaged in adding to his father’s new fortress of Preslav, and the aqueduct was needed to supply
the growing city. [1]
This opening peace lasted satisfactorily for five years; but in 835-6 a diplomatic crisis faced
Bulgaria and the Empire. The Thirty Years’ Peace required, it appears, confirmation at every
decade. In 825-6 this had been effected without difficulty; Omortag had been giving his attention
then to the middle Danube, while the Emperor Michael II was fully engaged with religious
problems at home. But by the end of the second decade certain problems forced themselves on
the Khan’s and the Emperor’s notice. When Krum captured Adrianople in 813 he had
transported ten thousand of its inhabitants to a spot beyond the Danube, which soon acquired the
name of Macedonia—for Adrianople was the capital of the Macedonian theme. [2] There they
still lived, now numbering twelve thousand, enjoying, it seems, a certain degree of self-
government and electing their chief magistrate. But they were restive in their exile; its
discomforts and periodical persecutions made them long for their old homes. The Khan,
however, wished to keep them. No doubt the skilled artisans that must have been amongst them
were of great value to him in manufacturing luxuries for his court. It was only with the greatest
difficulty that Cordyles, the governor of these Macedonians, made his way to Constantinople, to
persuade the Emperor Theophilus to send ships to the Danube to rescue them. They had already
once tried to escape across Bulgaria; but
1. Aboba-Pliska, pp. 191, 230-1. Uspenski, Zlatarski, and Bury all agree in translating the
obscure word ‘ ἀνάβρυτον ’ as aqueduct.

86
without Imperial help they were doomed to failure. Theophilus, however, waited for the
temporary break in the Truce before taking action, but in 836 he sent some ships to the Danube.
The ‘Macedonians’ moved down the river to meet the ships and began to cross one of the
northern tributaries of the river—probably the Pruth. [1] The local Bulgar governor determined
to check them and crossed over to attack them, but was beaten with great loss; and the
Macedonians triumphantly effected their crossing. The Bulgars then called in to their aid the
Magyars, whose power now extended to the Bulgar frontier. [2] The Magyars came gladly;
numbers of them presented themselves before the Macedonians’ camp demanding the surrender
of all their belongings. The demand was refused, and in the battle that followed the Macedonians
again, by the help of St. Adrian, were victorious. And so they passed on safely to the ships and
Constantinople, after more than twenty years in exile. [3]
The Bulgars had played an unimpressive part in this episode. They were too busy elsewhere.
Malamir, like Theophilus, intended to get some work done before he renewed the treaty; and his
work was of a more drastic
1. Bury, by assuming that this river must be the Danube (op. cit., p. 371), created unnecessary
complications that ruin the geography of the story. The fact that no name is given to the river
does not necessarily mean that the river must be the same as the last river mentioned.
3. Leo Grammaticus, p. 232: Logothete (Slavonic version), pp. 101-2: Theophanes Continuatus,
p. 216. Bury, loc. cit.: Zlatarski, Istoriya i., I, pp. 339-40. There is some difficulty about the date.
The Slavonic version calls the Khan Vladimir, which must be a mistake for Malamir, muddling
him with Boris’s son Vladimir. Bury and Zlatarski both date the episode 836, Bury to fit his
chronology of Basil I’s life, and Zlatarski to fit it in before Malamir is succeeded by Presiam.
Both reasons seem to me to be invalid; Mr. Brooke (Β. Ζ. xx·) nas shown Basil to have been
born far later, and I do not think that Presiam’s reign happened. But, as Bury says (op. cit., p. ix),
the tradition given in Basil’s life that this exile lasted some twenty-three years is probably
reliable, though Basil, like other heroes, has acquired adventures that do not belong to him.
Probably it was his father or an elder brother that lived through the captivity.
87
nature. The treaty of 815-16 had left the great Imperial fortresses of Philippopolis and Sardica
isolated and deserted. Malamir now proceeded to annex the latter and the surrounding territory,
and to advance even farther, along the road to Thessalonica. The Slavs of Macedonia and the
Greek peninsula were too unruly during these years for the Emperor to control, and he had
likewise to submit without effective protest to this Bulgar intervention. This advance to
Thessalonica was probably not directed against the rich city, but a move to cover work further to
the west. The Bulgars were beginning now to settle and set up their rule in the hills of Upper
Macedonia, the land that was to be their second cradle—the land for which they sigh so sadly to-
day. [1]
Despite these questionable transactions, the truce was renewed and lasted another decade, till its
due termination. During these years Malamir kept his attention on his western frontier. On the
north-west, in Pannonia, he seems to have lived in peace with the Croats and with his most
formidable neighbours, the Franks. But in 845, when the Thirty Years’ Truce was drawing to a
close, he thought it worth while to send ambassadors to Louis the German’s court at Paderborn,
to make a permanent peace and alliance that would leave his hands free to deal, when the time
came, with the Greeks. [2] Further south he was less peaceful. With the annexation of Sardica,
his power had spread into the valley of the Morava.
On the hills beyond the Morava a chieftain called
1. The Thessalonica expedition is mentioned in the story of Cordyles and his ‘Macedonians’ (see
reference above). The annexation of Sardica is probable, because, while by the peace of 816,
Sardica, with Philippopolis, appears to have been left dismantled but not annexed, by the time of
the Serbian war, Sardica must have been in Bulgar hands. This is the only date when these
annexations can have occurred. It is also probable that some such annexation was the main cause
of the Bulgaro-Serbian war. (See below.)
2. Annales Fuldenses, p. 364.

88
Vlastimer was uniting the tribes around and building the Serbian nation. In his task he was
certainly helped by the Bulgarian menace. The Serbs were alarmed by this great empire
spreading to their borders and moving to cut off their expansion to the south; they gladly put
themselves under Vlastimer’s care. Moreover, Vlastimer was encouraged and urged on by his
nominal suzerain the Emperor, who was far enough away not to be a menace himself, but who
was delighted at the growth of a new thorn in the side of Bulgaria. The loss of the last Imperial
outposts beyond Rhodope was amply compensated, if thereby Bulgaria was made a close
neighbour of a jealous rival.
Whether Vlastimer or Malamir actually provoked the inevitable war is uncertain: but in 839 the
Bulgars invaded Serbia, under Presiam, probably a scion of the royal house. But the Serbs knew
how to fight among their hills. After three years Presiam had achieved nothing, but had lost large
numbers of his men. In 842 the Bulgars returned to their country defeated. [1]
But Malamir did not let this set-back interfere with his Macedonian policy. Soon after the year
846, when the Thirty Years’ Truce was ended, he sent his general, the Kavkan Isbules, to invade
the regions of the Struma and the Nestos, again probably to cover the Bulgar penetration farther
to the west. The Imperial troops in those themes were probably engaged in fighting rebel Slavs in
the Peloponnese, and could not oppose him. But to create diversion the Empress-Regent
Theodora strengthened her garrisons in Thrace and began systematically to devastate Thracian
Bulgaria. This drew Isbules back, but not before the Bulgars had annexed Philippopolis and
advanced to Philippi. A truce seems to have followed this campaign. Of its terms we know
nothing; probably
1. De Administrando Imperio, p. 154. See Appendix VIII. I follow Zlatarski’s dates (op. cit., p.
346), but certainty is impossible.
89
the Bulgars were authorized to proceed with their penetration of the Macedonian hinterland—a
work which the Empire was powerless to prevent. [1]
Malamir lived some five years longer; but his latter days were clouded. Probably his health was
poor—he never led his armies in person—and he was troubled with domestic problems;
Christianity was spreading even into his own family. The trouble was due to a Greek called
Cinamon. As a young man Cinamon had been captured at Adrianople by Krum and had been
assigned as a slave to Omortag. He was a very able slave, but obstinately remained a Christian;
which so annoyed Omortag that eventually he put him in prison. After Omortag’s death
Enravotas, desirous of possessing the perverse paragon, asked his brother Malamir to release him
and give him to him. Unfortunately Cinamon acquired a great influence over his new master, and
gradually Enravotas became a convert to the Christian faith. This was very awkward; Enravotas,
besides being a prince, held some high position in the army—the Greek martyrologist calls him
also Boïnos, a Greek transliteration of the Slavonic for a warrior. But Christianity was inevitably
associated with Greek propaganda; the Empire was the only Christian State with whom Bulgaria
had had intimate dealings, and the Emperors were fond of using missionaries for political
purposes. Enravotas’s conversion smelled strongly of treachery. Besides, Christianity was
probably spreading among the humbler classes, and to have a prince on their side would
encourage far too much subjects whose loyalty was inevitably doubtful, but who were negligible
so long
1. Georgius Continuatus, p. 821: Logothete (Slavonic version), p. 103: I follow Bury (op. cit.,
pp. 372-3) and Zlatarski (op. cit., p. 350) in assuming that the Philippi (Villoison’s) and the
Shumla inscriptions both belong to this campaign (Aboba-Pliska, p. 233). The latter inscription
indicates clearly that it was now that the Bulgars annexed Philippopolis; it also mentions
Probatum and Burdizus in terms that would imply that they were the forts mentioned vaguely by
the Logothete.
90
as they remained humble and fairly scattered. Malamir begged his brother to come back and
worship the sun and moon, as all good Bulgars did. But the glory of being the first Bulgarian
martyr was too much for Enravotas; he remained obdurate. The Khan was obliged to put him to
death. [1]
Three years later, in 852, Malamir himself died. He was succeeded by his nephew, the son of
Svinitse, Boris. [2]
The new Khan Boris was young, and full of the impetuous audacity of youth. He longed to
restore the military prestige of Bulgaria and her Khans, that had lain dormant during his uncle’s
reign. His first move was to collect his forces on the southern frontier, with the intent of breaking
Malamir’s treaty. But the Empress-Regent Theodora was, we are told, a match for him. She sent
to him saying that, if he invaded the Empire, she would lead its forces against him in person: so
that if he won he would have no glory in defeating a woman, and if he lost he would be
ridiculous. The young Khan was gallantly abashed; but the Empress supplemented her feminine
diplomacy by offering to revise the frontier—moving it southward to run south for some twenty-
five miles from the neighbourhood of Develtus to the Iron Gate in the Stranya Planina, and then
due west to join the Great Fence at the Sakar Planina. It was not a great sacrifice on the
Empress’s part; the ceded territory included Anchialus and Develtus, but, like the other fortresses
that Krum destroyed, they had lain dismantled and
1. Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, pp. 192 ff. He dates Enravotas’s death three years
before Malamir’s. I think it was the aspect of treachery rather than the religious aspect that
caused Malamir to kill his brother. It appears as an isolated case of martyrdom.
2. I follow Zlatarski’s date (Izviestiya, pp. 45-7) for Boris’s succession. It is made probable by
the embassy to Germany known to have taken place that year, and fits with the date given by
Theophylact (p. 201). His name appears in the Greek writers variously as Βώγωρις, Βόγαρις,
Βωρίσης, and Βορίσης (miswritten also once as Γόβορις and once as Βορώσης), in early
Slavonic translations as Borish and Boris. On his inscriptions he is Βόρης.
91
half-deserted ever since that day, and the whole district had been waste land since the war. But
its cession achieved Theodora’s object; she could not then have afforded a war. Her persecution
of the Paulicians on her eastern frontier was causing her more trouble than so pious a policy
deserved. [1]
Boris then turned his attention to the north-west. In 852 he had sent an embassy to Mainz to
Louis the German, to announce his accession and renew his uncle’s treaty. But next year,
encouraged no doubt by his own bloodless triumphs in the south and instigated by Louis’s rival,
Charles the Bald of the Western Franks, he invaded Frankish territory. But, despite the support
of local Slavs, he was defeated and obliged to retire; and peace was soon re-made. It is probable
that his aim had been the annexation of Pannonian Croatia, which at the time was a vassal-state
of the Franks; indeed, the victory that the Frankish chroniclers claimed may really have been the
victory of the Croats. We know that he invaded Croatia without success, and at last had to retire
and make a peace, at which he received many handsome presents. But the Croats never became
his vassals nor paid him any tribute. [2]
1. Genesius (pp. 85-6) tells the story of Theodora’s message, but does not name the Bulgar
Khan. Theophanes Continuatus (pp. 162-5) reproduces it, calling the Khan Boris (Βώγωρις) and
connecting it with Boris’s conversion, owing to which Theodora ceded the territory. But
Theodora had fallen in 856—seven years before Boris was converted. The Imperial records
would more probably be accurate about which Emperor or Empress ceded territory than about
Bulgarian semi-internal affairs. Besides, Theodora’s message, though it makes a pretty anecdote
and probably is not entirely apocryphal, would hardly by itself deter an ambitious Bulgar. The
talk about the treaty implies that the incident took place soon after Boris’s accession, when
Malamir’s treaty probably needed renewing. I therefore follow Zlatarski (Izviestiya, pp. 54 ff.:
Istoriya, i. 2, pp. 2 ff.) in isolating these incidents from the conversion, and dating them early in
the reign—probably 852. I accept Zlatarski’s geography of the ceded territory (Izviestiya, loc.
cit.); the old identification of the Σιδηρᾶ Pass with Veregava is clearly impossible.
2. Annales Bertiniani, p. 448: De Administrando Imperio, pp. 150-1. I believe that these refer to
the same war, which was an attempt by Boris to wrest Pannonian Croatia from the Franks: hence
the Franks recorded it as a war against them. The Croatia must be Pannonian Croatia, not
Dalmatian Croatia—Ratimir’s kingdom, not Tirpimir’s, as Zlatarski (Istoriya, i, 2, pp. 8-9) and
Dvornik (p. 54) say; to reach Dalmatian Croatia, Boris would have had to operate either through
Serbia or through Pannonian Croatia. Nor is it necessary to identify the Slavs mentioned as
Boris’s auxiliaries as Moravians, as Zlatarski (op. cit., p. 7) and Bury (op. cit., p. 383) do. The
Moravians were well enough known to the Frankish annalists by now to be called by name, not
generically as Slavs. The Φράγγών νέφος, which Theophylact (loc. cit.) says covered Bulgaria at
the time of Boris’s accession, probably means the Frankish victories in this war.
92
There were other enemies on that western frontier. Boris was eager to avenge Presiam’s defeats
at the hands of the Serbs; and he realized that a strong Serbia would necessarily make difficult
his expansion both in Croatia and in Upper Macedonia. The latter question probably caused him
to declare war. It seems that throughout his first decade Boris was busily continuing the work of
Malamir’s reign and pushing his frontier right to the mountains of Albania, and even the
northernmost peaks of Pindus. In 860 he sent an embassy to Constantinople. We know neither
the cause nor the achievements of this embassy save that its audiences kept the Arab ambassador
waiting. [1] Probably Boris was asking for recognition of his Macedonian annexations and for
the neutrality of the Imperial government before his attack on the Serbs. But he was no more
successful than Presiam. Since Vlastimer’s death his sons Muntimer, Stroemer, and Goinic had
shared the Serbian throne. They united to meet the invader, and caught him in the treacherous
valleys, defeating him utterly and capturing his son Vladimir and twelve Great Boyars. To
ransom them Boris was forced to make peace. He agreed to evacuate the country, and on his
humiliating retreat Muntimer’s two sons acted as his escort as far as Rase on the frontier (Račka,
near Novi-Bazar), where they exchanged presents, the Serbian princes giving the Khan two
slaves, two falcons, two hounds, and ninety skins. This friendship with Muntimer’s family later
bore fruit, when the Serbian princes quarrelled amongst
1. Tabari, in Vasiliev, Vizantiya i Araby, i., Prilozheniya, p. 57.
93
themselves. Muntimer, who emerged victorious, sent his brothers and their families to prison in
Bulgaria, and thus gave the Bulgars many excuses for intervening among the Serbs. So, finally,
Boris recovered from the consequences of his defeat. [1]
This Serbian war was the last episode in the history of the heathen Empire. Already the drama
was opening that would change the fate of Bulgaria and of half Europe. Of the internal aspect of
the land in the last days of its old life we have little more information than in its earlier history.
The Slav element in the country by now was displaying its predominance. The Slavonic
language was in general use. Greek might still be needed for public inscriptions, there being no
Slavonic alphabet; but the old Bulgar tongue had utterly or almost utterly disappeared. [2] The
Khans since Krum had encouraged the Slavs, inviting Slavs to their Court; Omortag’s sons had
even borne Slavonic names, and Boris’s likewise. [3] In the vast Bulgar lands beyond the
Danube the proportion of races was probably fairly even, though both Slavs and Bulgars were
leavened by the remnants of innumerable tribes that had lingered in the Eastern Carpathians. But
south of the Danube, in what was now the centre of the empire, the Slavs far outnumbered the
Bulgars, particularly in the new Macedonian provinces on which the Khans were spending so
much attention. It was only the military
1. De Administrando Imperio, pp. 154—5. The date of tne war is doubtful, some writers—e.g.
Rambaud (p. 462)—placing it as late as 887. But Constantine implies that it took place fairly
soon after Vlastimer’s death (about 845-50), and it cannot have happened during the years
immediately following the Conversion (863), as we are fairly well informed about those years.
On the other hand, Boris was old enough to have a son fighting (Vlastimer is Constantine’s
misprint for Vladimir); considering that he only died in 907, this cannot have been much before
863. I think it best to connect the war with the mysterious embassy of 860. Bulgaria has always
had to try to prevent an alliance between Constantinople and the Serbs.
2. Titles and proper names only survived. There was never an attempt to create an alphabet for
the Bulgar language.
3. e.g. Malamir and Vladimir.
94
aristocracy that remained purely Bulgar. For several more generations their names remained
without a trace of Slav in them, and their old Bulgar titles lasted till the fall of the Empire,
whereas the title of Khan was, as soon as men learnt to write Slavonic, superseded by the
Slavonic Knyaz. The power of this nobility had been curtailed by Krum, but under the weaker
control of Malamir it had revived. The Kavkan Isbules, who could give the Khan an aqueduct,
showed by his very munificence what a formidable subject he was. It seems that the Khan was
engaged in a perpetual struggle with the Bulgar nobles, he wishing to rule like the Emperor,
autocratically, through a non-hereditary bureaucracy, and they, probably with constitutional
justification, aiming at reducing him to be the president of a council of bоyars . The Khans’
favourization of the Slavs, the middle and lower classes, was obviously directed against this
aristocracy—they even created a rival Slav nobility. Probably Krum and Omortag sought to deal
with the constitutional difficulty by appointing Slavs on the council of bоyars , who necessarily
became their creatures, and somehow breaking down the hereditary principle: while Malamir,
who was weaker, let in the Bulgars again, and thus had to suffer the patronage of magnates such
as Isbules; and the young Boris inherited the difficulty. It was probably from among these boyars
that provincial governors were chosen, who ruled the ten provinces by military force from
fortified camps. [1]
The vast bulk of the population was engaged in agriculture, living in free peasant communities
and following the simple pastoral methods that have lasted almost unchanged in the Balkans to
this day. But by now a small
1. The number of the provinces into which Bulgaria was divided (ten) is known from the story of
the revolt of the nobility at the time of the Conversion (see below, p. 105).
95
commercial middle-class was rising. The annexation of cities such as Develtus and Anchialus
included in the Bulgar dominions a certain number of Greeks and Armenians who had lingered
in the dismantled towns, and who no doubt eagerly took advantage of the new trade conditions:
while round the inland fortresses, such as Sardica, there remained a population claiming Roman
descent. Moreover, Bulgaria herself enjoyed commercial activities; Bulgarian salt from the
Transylvanian provinces was exported to saltless countries like Moravia; while the Byzantine
exports to Central Europe passed most of them through Bulgar territory, either by the great
Constantinople-Adrianople-Philippopolis-Sardica-Belgrade road or by the road from
Thessalonica that joined it at Naissus (Nish). Most of this carrying trade was done, probably, by
Greeks and Armenians; but the native inhabitants must sometimes have shared in it. It is unlikely
that the Bulgarians were yet working the mines that so enriched later Balkan monarchs; and such
crafts as building were in the hands of Greeks, captives, or newly made subjects.
Indeed, the culture was all in foreign hands. Lack of an alphabet forbade any native literature;
the few official inscriptions had to be written in Greek. The arts, too, were practised only by
Greeks; it was Greek artists that the Khan employed to paint him frescoes in the palaces that
Greek architects had built for him. Thus the arts did not flourish there, save perhaps primitively
among the peasants. Even architecture was seldom needed. The peasants lived in their huts and
hovels, the small middle-class lived in the old Greek cities; only the nobility and the Khans
required proper edifices. The Bulgarians were adept at constructing earthworks and rough
fortifications; but probably the nobles were following the Khans’ examples, and wanted halls
and chambers built
96
inside their rectangular castle walls, all bravely modelled on the fine palaces of Constantinople.
[1]
Of the personal habits of the dwellers in these halls we know little. They were polygamous, they
wore turbans and trousers, and, contrary to expectation, they liked to wash themselves quite
often. [2] Domestic slavery was common there, as everywhere else in the Near East. Their
religion was apparently a crude worship of the sun and moon and stars and other natural
phenomena, whom they adored with human sacrifice and the sacrifice of horses and dogs. A
horse’s tail was their standard, and they swore by their swords. [3] But none of their old temples
and altars has survived, save a rectangular building at Pliska, which later ages converted into a
church. [4] It was a religion without much ethical background; the Bulgars remained cruel in
their practices, torture and the death penalty playing a part in all their legal processes, with
mutilation as a new-fangled humanity. [5]
This state of affairs was hardly worthy of a magnificent empire. Boris began to wonder whether
some change might not be made. But before he could act himself, his hand was forced.
Far away to the north-west, in the valleys between Bohemia and the Western Carpathians, there
lived some Slav tribes known collectively as the Moravians. In about the second decade of the
century the Moravians were united under the rule of a prince called Moïmir, who in
1. Pliska is the only palace to have been systematically excavated, save for the early Preslav in
the Dobrudja, which is too early to have much remains of interest. Great Preslav is only now
being excavated as far as the earliest layer, but almost certainly was built on the same lines.
2. Nicolaus I Papa, Responsa, cap. vi., p. 572.
3. Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, p. 189: Nicolaus I Papa, op. cit., cap. xxxiii, p. 580: see
above, p. 74, and reff.
4. Aboba-Pliska, pp. 104 ff.
5. Nicolaus I Papa, op. cit., cap. lxxxvi., p. 595.
97
the years 833 to 836 conquered the Prince Pribina of Nitra and extended his power to the east
along the northern bank of the Danube as far as its sharp bend southward by Esztergom. This
expansion alarmed the Franks. The Margrave of the Eastern Mark and the Bishop of Passau
regarded Moravia as a legitimate field for their enterprises, political and religious, and they
disliked this show of native vigour. They waited till Moïmir’s death (845); then Louis the
German intervened and forced on the Moravians Moïmir’s nephew, Rostislav, little thinking that
Rostislav would show both ability and ingratitude. Louis was soon undeceived. Rostislav first
established himself firmly in Moravia, and then began to extend his influence over the
neighbouring tribes. The Czechs became his firm allies and probably his vassals; he annexed the
country of the Avars, who lingered on the middle Danube, and thus became a neighbour to the
Bulgars on the Theiss; and he began to threaten the Slav principalities that clustered under
Frankish suzerainty round the River Drave and Lake Balaton. Louis the German had been
powerless to check him. His great expedition of 855 had come back having achieved nothing;
even his campaigns against the Czechs were ineffectual. Rostislav even intervened to encourage
Carloman in the revolt against Louis, though he wisely refrained from helping the rebel son too
far. By the year 862, Rostislav was ruler of an empire stretching from the Theiss and Lake
Balaton to the neighbourhood of Vienna and to the upper waters of the Oder and the Vistula and
the middle Carpathians, with Bohemia loyally guarding his flank. The German chroniclers
showed their awe by calling him a king, a title they reserved only for great independent
sovereigns. [1]
There were now four great Powers in Europe, the two
1. See Dvornik, pp. 150 ff., who gives references. The history of Moravia before 862 is chiefly to
be found in the Annales Fuldenses, pp. 364 ff., passim.
98
Christian Empires on the east and on the west [1] and the two barbarian States in between. The
situation was too simple, too delicately balanced to last. It was Rostislav that made the first
move. He had long coquetted with Christianity; but he was faced with much the same problem as
the Bulgarians. To the Moravians, Christianity was connected with Frankish influence; the
missionaries that overran the country were the minions of the Bishop of Passau and of Louis the
German. And yet Christianity was desirable; it would raise his prestige and improve his culture,
and it might be made to mould his empire into a firmer unity. But it must be a national Church,
not a German or a Latin affair. Rostislav’s restless mind sought out a new solution.
Early in the year 862 an embassy travelled from Moravia to Constantinople, asking of the
Emperor that he should send a master to teach the True Faith in the language of the Slavs. [2]
1. The Carolingians were by now subdivided; but, on the whole, Louis the German and the sons
of Lothair in Lorraine and Italy acted together.
2. Vita Constantini, pp. 199 ff.
CHAPTER III
The auction of souls
A war was raging in Christendom, a spiritual struggle that was moulding the destinies of Europe.
The caprice of Providence had brought contemporaneously into the world two of the greatest
statesmen of ecclesiastical history, two whose ambitions and conceptions would inevitably lead
to conflict. In April 858, through the influence of the unsuspecting Western Emperor Louis II, a
certain Nicholas ascended the Papal throne at Rome. Eight months later, on Christmas Day, the
Caesar Bardas, regent of the East, having somewhat roughly dispossessed the former Patriarch of
Constantinople, Ignatius, appointed in his stead his friend, the First Secretary Photius. Pope
Nicholas I was possessed of boundless vigour and resolution, bold and far-sighted, praised by his
followers as a man of deeds not words; and all his talents were directed at one splendid aim, the
world-supremacy of the Roman see. Christendom was still one, save in the distant south and
east, where Copts, Armenians, or Nestorians indulged in their various heresies; and its spiritual
pinnacles were occupied by five Patriarchal thrones—those of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria,
Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Of these patriarchates the Roman bishopric, the see of St. Peter,
had always enjoyed the first place. Its jurisdiction extended over all Christian Europe north and
west of the Adriatic (save for Sicily and Calabria), an area vastly increased in recent centuries by
the spread of civilization along the Baltic and North Seas. Compared to his Roman rival, the
Patriarch of Constantinople was a parvenu, the last to be created; but he had always enjoyed
great power through his association with the Eastern
99
100
Empire, over all of whose provinces he was spiritual governor. The other patriarchates were of
little importance now; their sees were in territories controlled by the infidel. Though the
patriarchates had their order of precedence, except at Rome, none was considered supreme over
any of the others; the only supreme office or body in the Church was a general Oecumenical
Council to which all sent their representatives; and such representatives were even invited to the
less important synods and councils in any one patriarchate—but save at Constantinople they
were seldom held; the other patriarchs, freer from secular control, regarded them as a challenge
to their authority. [1]
Nicholas wished to alter this. He was the first bishop of the world; he intended to be supreme
bishop. He experienced difficulty even among his own subjects. The German Church had always
been closely influenced by the secular powers, and pandered to the whims of the German
monarchs. But Nicholas was a match for it. A climax came in 863 over the matrimonial high-
handedness of Lothair of Lorraine: when the Pope triumphantly asserted his jurisdiction and
defied the whole great Carolingian clan. At the same time he was turning his attention to the
East, to the rival Empire, where the irregularity in Photius’s election to the patriarchate gave a
splendid loophole for intervention.
But Nicholas little knew the man with whom he had to deal. Photius was prodigiously learned—
too learned, some said, whispering of sorcery; he was as determined and courageous as the
Roman, and far more subtle,
1. I cannot here go into the highly controversial details of Romano-Byzantine ecclesiastical

relations, which Roman historians have almost always befogged by confusing ‘primacy’ with
‘supremacy,’ and by regarding the various settlements that favoured Rome as final and the others
as ephemeral. Actually all attempts to settle the question once and for all had been equally
ephemeral, and were to be so till the ultimate schism in the eleventh century. Here I have merely
stated the general view held in the East in the ninth century.
101
far more imaginative, with far more knowledge of his audiences. The battle began in 860.
Nicholas had at first attempted to bargain, to recognize Photius in return for the ecclesiastical
provinces of Calabria and Illyricum, which had belonged to Rome till the reign of the Emperor
Leo III; but Photius outwitted the Papal legates and wrote to Nicholas letters of perfect courtesy,
but letters as from an equal to an equal. Things steadily worsened. Nicholas grew more and more
outraged and furious, and the Patriarch, sure of secular support at home, more and more serenely
independent. At last, in April 863, the Pope solemnly excommunicated Photius, and Photius
made the superb retort of excommunicating the Pope.
It was in the midst of this storm that Rostislav’s ambassadors arrived at Constantinople.
Rostislav well knew what was happening, and he had learnt his lesson. He, like the Basileus,
must have a Church under his secular power. Neither Germany nor Rome would give it to him;
but Constantinople, in theory the champion of spiritual independence, in practice too distant to
control such a Church, would help him now. Moreover, the goodwill of the Empire would be
useful in case he had trouble with his new powerful neighbour, the Bulgarian Khan.
The Emperor Michael received the embassy gladly. His uncle, the Caesar Bardas, who governed
in his name, and the Patriarch thought of their mutual friend Constantine the Philosopher, a
Greek from Thessalonica, better known by the name that he assumed on his deathbed, Cyril, a
missionary of previous experience and a linguist and philologist of renown. Accordingly Cyril
and his elder brother Methodius set off for Moravia, armed with an alphabet by means of which
they would translate the holy writings into the Slavonic tongue. [1]
1. I deal with the question of the Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets in Appendix IX.
102
The news of the embassy and the mission stirred the European Courts. Boris of Bulgaria at once
suspected a political significance. He took the obvious measures for safeguarding himself, and
entered into negotiations with Louis the German. Later in the year (862), when Louis’s son
Carloman, governor of the East Mark, revolted with Moravian help against his father, the
Bulgarians appeared as the close allies of the German king. [1] We do not know the clauses of
this treaty, but there was apparently one amongst them that roused the government at
Constantinople to action. Boris, like Rostislav, was toying with the idea of Christianity; he now
was undertaking to receive it from the German Court. [2]
Various stories were related of the cause of the Khan’s conversion. Some told of a Greek slave, a
monk called Theodore Cupharas, who had long laboured to convert his royal master. After some
time, Cupharas was ransomed by the Empress Theodora in exchange for the Khan’s own sister,
an honoured captive in Constantinople. But the princess had embraced Christianity, and she too
used her influence to persuade the Khan. Nevertheless, Boris was obdurate, till at last a dreadful
famine visited the country, and the old heathen deities could give no help. In despair the Khan
turned to the God of his sister and of his slave, and there he met with help. In gratitude he
became a Christian. [3] A second story was simpler. A Greek painter called Methodius had been
commissioned to paint hunting-scenes round the walls of the royal palace; when Boris, moved by
a sudden whim, told him instead to paint something terrible, no matter what. Methodius, who
was a monk, piously considered that nothing would be more terrible than the Last Judgement;
and so he
1. Annales Fuldenses, p. 367 (?).
2. Annales Bertiniani (Hincmar), p. 465; Nicolaus I Papa, Epistolae, p. 293.
3. Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 162-3.
103
depicted with ghastly realism the punishment meted out to the wicked, and the righteous being
rewarded. The Khan was deeply awed, and in terror joined the ranks of the righteous. [1] Others
told merely of the True Faith being forced upon Bulgaria by Imperial arms and diplomacy. [2]
The story of Methodius is probably apocryphal, despite the handsome tribute that it pays to the
potency of art. It has too suspicious an air of monkish naïveté. But the story of Cupharas may
well be mainly true. The influence that these educated slaves had on their masters has been
shown in the case of the Prince Enravotas, while it is very likely that some Bulgar princess
should have been a hostage and been converted at Constantinople, and have used her powers of
persuasion on her return. But the Emperor’s armies were the final decisive factor.
The idea of Carolingian influence spreading to the Balkans by means of religion was seriously
alarming to Constantinople. Carolingian influence meant in the end the spiritual control of
Rome. At the moment, it is true, the German bishops were rebellious against the stern rule of the
Papacy, but it was a pitiably poor rebellion that hardly could be hoped to succeed. At any time
the Emperor would have regretted Roman intervention so close to his capital; now, with
Nicholas and Photius at the height of their contest, the thing was unthinkable. But there was one
way out, one way of turning it all to the profit of the Empire. The Emperor Michael brought his
army to the frontier and dispatched his fleet along the Black Sea coast.
It was a good moment to strike. The Bulgar armies were away far in the north, campaigning
against Carloman and the Moravians. Moreover, by what, surely, seemed the direct interference
of Heaven, Bulgaria was being visited by
1. Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 162-3.
2. Georgius Monachus Continuatus, p. 824: Logothete (Slavonic version), p. 104.
104
a peculiarly severe famine. Boris was powerless, and wisely made no resistance. At the first
news of the invasion, he sent to ask the Emperor’s conditions of peace. [1]
Michael and his advisers were eager to be propitiatory. As a sop to the Khan it seems that they
recognized his jurisdiction over Upper Macedonia as far as a frontier line drawn roughly from
the Rivers Black Drina, Devol, Ozum, and Voiusa, and round Mount Grammus up the Lake
Ostrovo, thus including all the land round Lake Ochrida and Lake Prespa. [2] But in return Boris
must give up his offensive alliance with the Germans and indulge in nothing closer than an
ordinary treaty of peace. And, most important of all, Boris and his people must accept
Christianity, and accept it from Constantinople. To all of this Boris agreed, even surprising the
Greeks by his readiness to change his faith. His ambassadors at Constantinople were baptized
there, as a guarantee of their master’s intentions. Finally, early in September 865, [3] with the
Emperor standing sponsor, the Khan himself was baptized, and rechristened by his godfather’s
name of Michael. [4]
In this great revolution, Boris had been guided, not only by a spiritual impulse and by the
diplomatic needs of the moment, but also by a wise foresight of the political effect
1. Georgius Monachus Continuatus, loc. cit.: Logothete (Slavonic version), loc. cit. In
Theophanes Continuatus (pp. 165 ff.) this is muddled up with Theodora’s Bulgar treaty (see
above, p. 90).
2. Ochrida and Prespa were definitely Bulgar later in Boris’s reign. It was probably a formal
cession of such territory now that muddled the Continuator of Theophanes and made him
connect the whole Conversion with Theodora’s cession of Develtus. I accept Zlatarski’s rough
frontier-line (Izviestiya, pp. 70 ff.).
3. The date of Boris’s baptism has been fixed by Zlatarski (Istoriya, i., 2, pp. 29 ff.) as between
September 1 and 19, 865. Photius (Epistolae, p. 742) and the Vita S. Clementis, p. 1201, give
rough dates, but Zlatarski’s ingenious arithmetic is based on Tudor Doksov’s Poslieslovie (p. 98)
and on an Albanian inscription.
4. Georgius Monachus Continuatus, loc. cit.: Logothete (Slavonic version) loc. cit.
Henceforward the chroniclers usually call him Michael. I shall however, for the sake of
simplicity, continue to call him Boris.
105
within his dominions. Hitherto the State religion had been the old Bulgar idolatry, a crude
worship of the heavenly bodies and the forces of nature; and the Slavs had had to join as best
they could in the devotions of the masters. Christianity would be a common religion for them all,
a religion that welcomed Bulgar and Slav alike. Moreover, the old heathenism was probably
bound up with the old Bulgar institutions, with the clan-system that the Khans had so long tried
to break down; possibly many of the clans claimed a divine origin, and so would never recognize
in the Khan more than a mere primacy. But Christianity gave the Emperor in Constantinople a
sacrosanctity removing him far above all his subjects. Boris, too, sought such a halo; he too
would be a viceroy of God, in altitudes that his noblest subjects could never reach.
Boris began the process of evangelization on a very large scale; all his subjects had to undergo
the rite of baptism. But the country could not be converted quite so simply. The Bulgar nobility,
too, appreciated the position. Some of the boyars may have been attached to their old religion; all
were certainly attached to their rights. In their anger they incited the people of all the ten
provinces of the kingdom against the Khan, and Boris was soon surrounded in his palace at
Pliska by a huge and seething mob. That the Khan, helped as he was only by a few faithful
followers, should have escaped at all seemed miraculous; people talked of divine intervention,
and by the time that this story reached Western Europe this intervention had grown to fine
proportions. Boris, so they said in France, had only forty-eight Christian friends with him. [1]
With the bravery of despair he led them out to face the multitudes,
1. Annales Bertiniani (Hincmar of Reims), pp. 473—4, supply the details. Theophanes
Continuatus (p. 164) says briefly that Boris had few followers, and that he emerged from the
palace bearing a cross and was victorious. Nicolaus I Papa (Responsa, cap. xvii., p. 577) refers to
the victory over the great rebellion being due to divine aid.
106
calling on Christ’s name and bearing a cross on his breast; but, as the gates opened, seven
priests, each with lighted taper in his hand, appeared marching before him. Then, as they gazed,
the angry crowds saw strange sights. Behind, the palace seemed to be on fire and like to fall
down on their heads; in front, the horses of the royal party were walking on their hind-legs and
with their forelegs kicking at the rebels. Terror rushed over them; unable to fight or to flee, they
fell to the ground and lay prostrate.
Be that as it may, the rebellion was crushed, and Boris was able to take a revenge shocking in so
new a devotee of Christian meekness, but salutary for his country. Fifty-two nobles, the
ringleaders of the revolt, were put to death, and with them their children. The leaders of the
clans, the rivals of the monarch, were thus wiped out for ever. The rebels belonging to middle
and lower classes he spared and pardoned; their opposition had been genuinely religious, not
political; they would have no social prejudices against their ultimate conversion.
But, even though the boyars were crushed, the Conversion did not at once have the effect that
Boris hoped from it. The Emperor had firmly ordained in the treaty that the new Church must be
spiritually dependent upon the see of Constantinople. Accordingly, Bulgaria was flooded with
Greek priests, come to organize its structure and teach it true doctrines: while the Patriarch
himself wrote a letter to the Bulgar monarch, to ‘my beloved son, Michael the archon of Bulgaria
. . . the fair ornament of my labours.’ It was an extremely long letter. First it contained a full
account of the articles of faith as laid down in all seven of the Oecumenical Councils. Then, after
touching on the general principles of morality, showing how they arise out of the two New
Testament commandments, the Patriarch went on to delineate the duties of the good prince, in
almost a hundred polished
107
aphorisms and shrewd comments derived from all the wisdom of the Hebrews and the Greek
philosophers. [1] Historians ever since have gaped at this torrent of patronizing culture and
metaphysical sensibility that was poured over a simple barbarian, who sought only to have far
simpler problems solved for him—whether trousers were indecent and turbans counted as hats.
But Photius knew his business. The high authorities of the Church should not trouble about
details; it was their work to impress, not to conciliate. The mysteries of the True Faith were in
the keeping of the Patriarch. It showed the Khan better the relative status of his country and the
Emperor’s, that he should understand not one word of those subjects that were apparently the
common talk of Constantinople. Photius took a long view; he kept his dignity intact even at the
expense of the needs of the moment.
Boris, the beloved son Michael, was impressed, but dissatisfied. It was more difficult than he had
thought to be a Christian. The inrushing Greek clergy sought to teach in Greek, a method that
was being successful among the Slavs of the Empire, but one that the Bulgarian government
somewhat resented. Moreover, many of these Greeks were of inferior quality; some were of
those who had not the ability to secure good posts in the Church within the Empire, and so had to
seek their fortunes abroad. And missionaries of other tenets joined in the invasion. With the
Greeks came Armenians; some perhaps were mere monophysite heretics, but there were others
of a far more sinister and pregnant brand, Paulicians, to sow the seed of the fatally attractive
creed of Dualism. [2] Meanwhile, in the north, the Carolingians, safeguarded
1. Photius, Epistolae, viii., pp. 628 ff.
2. Nicolaus I Papa (Responsa, cap. cvi., p. 599) mentions the Armenians, probably Paulician
heretics. It was a growing Imperial custom to settle such heretics in colonies in provinces such as
Thrace, whence they could easily spread to Bulgaria.
108
by a new alliance with Constantinople, sent in their German missionaries to acquire what
influence they could; and all the time Pope Nicholas was waiting to intervene. So many creeds
and nations were anxious to help; but none would give the Khan the simple guidance necessary
to enable him to provide his country with a Church not too disturbing for its traditions and well
under his secular control.
After a year of Christianity, Boris was a wiser man. He was in a stronger position now, with
peace on his northern frontier, and no turbulent boyars and no famine at home. And he was angry
with the Greeks. The authorities at Constantinople were treating him as a poor barbarian, and
were attempting to keep the Church tightly under their control, not letting it pass into his—
denying him even a bishop. So Boris looked elsewhere. The struggle between the Pope and
Photius was reaching its climax; Photius, to his scandalized glee, had found the Pope subscribing
to the monstrous and indefensible heresy of the Dual Procession of the Holy Ghost and was
preparing denunciations to rouse the indignation of all true Christians. [1] Boris had no strict
views about the mystical symmetry of the triangle. On the other hand, he realized that he could
be a useful factor in the struggle. In August 866, Bulgar ambassadors, the Khan’s cousin Peter,
John, and Martin, arrived in Rome with rich and holy gifts and asked the Pope in Boris’s name
for a bishop and for priests. They also submitted to him a list of 106 questions on which their
master desired his opinions. [2] Boris also, lest Rome should fail him, sent a similar request for a
1. Photius did not actually denounce the Roman heresy in public till 867, but already the
Churches were mutually excommunicated and the Patriarch had discovered the heresy.
2. Johannes VIII Papa, Epistolae, p. 159: Anastasius Bibliothecarius, pp. 1373-4. The presents
included the arms wearing which Boris had defeated the heathen rebels. Louis the German
promptly demanded them from the Pope (Annales Bertiniani, p. 474).
109
bishop and priests to Ratisbon to Louis the German. Louis complied, but when his clergy arrived
they found their places already filled, and went back promptly to Germany. [1]
Nicholas was overjoyed at this unexpected support. At once he dispatched a consignment of his
clergy to Bulgaria, supplying them fully with books and vessels and robes and all the trappings
of his faith, and placed at their head two of his ablest legates—Paul, the Bishop of Populonia,
and Formosus, Bishop of Porto. At the same time he sent detailed answers to all the questions,
however trivial, that the Khan had submitted to him.
Nicholas’s answers made a document vastly different from the polished, subtle, theological
sermon sent by Photius. It was simply written, helpful and very conciliatory. Boris had asked
almost entirely about matters of religious practice, when to fast and what to wear in church, and
whether the stricter forms of abstinence demanded by the Greek priests were really obligatory.
There were also one or two special cases, particularly to do with a Greek who pretended to be a
priest and baptized huge numbers of innocent Bulgars; need they all be re-baptized ? But Boris
even asked advice about matters more properly concerning civil law, such as the penalties for
murder, and matters entirely social: should he continue to eat his meals in solitude, and what did
the Pope really think about his costume? Nicholas was deeply concerned not to lay too heavy a
yoke on a people as yet rude and untrained. As regards abstinence, though strict, he condemned
many of the complications introduced by the Greeks; it was not necessary to fast every
Wednesday as well as Friday, nor to abstain from bathing on both days, nor to refuse to eat food
killed by eunuchs: though one should not eat food hunted by a Christian but killed by
1. Annales Fuldenses, p. 379.
110
a heathen, or vice versa. [1] Trousers were permissible; but the Greeks were right in insisting
that turbans, like other forms of headgear, should be removed in churches, and women should, of
course, enter churches veiled. [2] He denounced the Greek habit of sortes biblicae as well as a
long list of pagan superstitions. [3] As for the Khan refusing to eat in company, this was bad
manners, but not actually impious. [4] With regard to murder, the civil law should see to that, but
the right of sanctuary in churches should be upheld. [5] Polygamy, which is the same as adultery,
was a far worse crime; the surplus wives must firmly be discarded, and the priest must impose a
suitable penance. [6] Nicholas also wished the Khan to mitigate the severity of his punishments.
[7] He showed up the uselessness as well as the barbarity of extracting evidence by torture; he
censured Boris’s treatment of the rebels. He even considered that the Khan had been too severe
in cutting the nose off the Greek who had pretended to be a priest. [8] Even resolute heathens
were to be wooed by persuasion, though socially shunned by the faithful. One class of criminals
alone must be punished without mercy—the apostate, who had sworn fidelity to the Christian
creed and had fallen back into heathendom. That was the one unforgivable sin. [9]
Boris had also asked whether his country might some time have a Patriarch. Nicholas had to
answer carefully. The Western Church over which he ruled was suspicious of Patriarchs. Boris’s
request was due to his simple, hopeful longing to be the equal of the Eastern Emperor. The Pope
was non-committal. Boris should have bishops, and later, when the Bulgarian Church was larger,
an
1. Nicolaus I Papa, Responsa, cap. iv., v., lvii., xci., pp. 570-2, 588, 596.
2. Ibid., cap. lviii., lxvi., pp. 588, 590-1. 3. Ibid., cap. lxvii., p. 593.
4. Ibid., cap. xlii., p. 583. 5. Ibid., cap. lxxxiii., p. 595.
6. Ibid., cap. li., p. 586. 7. Ibid., cap. lxxxiii.—lxxxvi., p.595.
8. Ibid., cap. xiv.-xvii., p. 575-7. 9. Ibid., cap. xli., pp. 582-3.

111
archbishop; and then they would consider about a Patriarch. Constantinople had grudged him
even his bishops; so he had to be content for the while with the promise of an archbishop from
Rome. [1]
Certainly the Roman clergy started their work with the most ingratiating zeal. Boris gave them
the monopoly within his dominions, dismissing all other priests and missionaries. Latin replaced
Greek as the sacred tongue. The Romans built churches and organized congregations, bringing
the light of Christian doctrine into the darkest homes and teaching at the same time the beauties
of obedience to the civil powers. Boris was overjoyed. Taking hold of his hair, in the old Bulgar
manner, he swore that he would always remain faithful to the see of Saint Peter. [2] The Papal
Court, too, was delighted, and spread the Khan’s praises throughout the Western world. Save in
Constantinople, everyone was happy.
This triumph was due chiefly to the tact and affability of one man, Formosus, Bishop of Porto.
He won entirely the Khan’s affections and trust; and Boris destined him for the patriarchate that
he still hoped to receive from Rome. After a year, in 867, he sent to Rome demanding that
Formosus should be made archbishop at least. [3] But Nicholas was unaccustomed to dictation:
Boris had to learn now what the Roman Church was. Possibly, had Boris asked for anyone but
Formosus, his request might have been granted. But Formosus was beginning to be regarded
with suspicion at the Papal Court. He had been thought suitable to go to Bulgaria in the first
place from his known hatred of Greeks. But he was wildly ambitious; perhaps he was
encouraging Boris in his dreams of an autonomous Bulgar Church, that he might be its
1. Nicolaus Papa I, Responsa, cap. lxxii., pp. 592-3.
2. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Preface to the Eighth Oecumenical Council, Mansi, vol. xvi., p.
11.
3. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Vita Nicolai, pp. 1375-6.
112
independent Patriarch. Certainly Boris was said to have undertaken solemnly always to press
forward Formosus’s claims. [1] Nicholas was suspicious: Formosus, he reminded the Khan, was
Bishop of Porto, and his diocese needed him back after so long an absence. He recalled the
previous envoys, and instead sent to Bulgaria two new bishops, Grimoald of Polimarti and
Dominic of Treviso. [2]
The Bulgars might be angry, but the Pope thought that he could afford it now. The European
situation had altered. In September 867 the Emperor Michael was murdered by the stable-boy
that he had so extravagantly befriended, and Basil the Macedonian was installed in his victim’s
place. Basil wished for popularity: he also had designs in Italy and Illyricum that would be
helped by an understanding with Rome. Photius had enemies even in Constantinople who had
never forgiven him his treatment of Ignatius. Basil promptly declared Photius deposed, and
reinstalled Ignatius. He then wrote to the Pope to ask him to send legates to a council at which
the past should be forgotten, the Roman precedence stated and supremacy hinted, and no one
should mention the word ‘Filioque.’ [3] Nicholas saw in this the utter triumph of Rome, and his
conciliatory movements decreased. He little knew the monarchs with whom he had to deal, the
parvenu Basil, and Boris the ex-barbarian.
And he never was to find out the truth about them. On November 13, 867, still victorious, he
died. [4]
His successor, Hadrian II, was a personal enemy of Formosus. More than ever the Papacy was
stern in its refusal of the Bulgar request. Grimoald and Dominic continued on their journey; and
Formosus and Paul of
1. Johannes VIII Papa, Epistolae, passim collectae, p. 327.
2. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, op. cit., pp. 1376-7.
3. For the Eighth Oecumenical Council, see below, pp. 113-4.

4. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, op. cit., p. 1378. Ignatius was not actually reinstated till November
23.
113
Populonia had to return to their shepherdless congregations. But Boris clung to the hope of
having an archbishop of his own choice—if not Formosus, at least someone personally
acceptable to him. There was a deacon Marinus, whom Nicholas had once sent on a mission to
Constantinople at the height of the Photian war. The Emperor had refused to admit him into the
Empire, and he had taken refuge at the Bulgar Court, where he had won the Khan’s friendship.
He had no diocese calling for his care; could he not be the Bulgar archbishop? A second
embassy, again led by Peter, travelled to Rome, in company with the returning bishops. But
Hadrian II was inexorable. Boris must be taught once and for all that the Pope intended always to
appoint whomsoever he chose all over his spiritual dominions. [1]
Towards the close of 869 a council, known proudly as the Eighth Oecumenical Council, with
legates from all the Patriarchs, assembled at Constantinople. The Papal legates—Stephen,
Bishop of Nepi, Donatus, Bishop of Ostia, and Marinus, Boris’s friend—attended with all the
smugness of certain victory. Things did not go altogether smoothly; the Emperor Basil took a
different view to them with regard to the procedure for the trial of Photius. But they adhered to
their instructions, and finally emerged triumphant. On February 28, 870, the council was
dismissed, with a growing feeling of hostility on all sides; but the Papal legates were well
satisfied with their achievements. Three days later the indefatigable Peter, ambassador of his
cousin the Khan, [2] arrived at Constantinople, to ask the Oecumenical Council to which
patriarchate Bulgaria belonged. Basil summoned the assembly to meet again. The legates of the
Eastern Patriarchs, well entertained by Basil and at one with the Greeks in disliking
1. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Vita Adriani, pp. 1393-6.
2. For the curious list of the Bulgar ambassadors, see Appendix V.
114
the pretentions of Rome, gladly concurred with the Greek bishops and with historical truth in
answering that it was to Constantinople. The Pope’s representatives were in a tiny minority; they
could only record their protest. Then they returned, crestfallen, to their master; a mocking
providence detained them on the way for nine months, spent chiefly as the prisoners of
Dalmatian pirates. Hardly were the Papal legates gone, before Ignatius on March 4 consecrated
an archbishop and bishops for Bulgaria—presumably persons of Boris’s choice. [1]
The reversal was complete. The frontier now was closed to Roman priests; the Roman bishops
were sent back in ignominy to Rome. [2] In the place of Latin, Greek was heard once more in the
churches. Boris was well satisfied. He had taught the great hierarchs to treat him with respect,
and the Greeks, more adaptable than the Latins, had learnt the lesson. The Bulgarian Church was
still under the Constantinopolitan patriarchate; but the yoke weighed lightly. The Archbishop of
Bulgaria ranked next after the Patriarch; and the Bulgar monarch was tacitly allowed similar
powers to the Emperor’s in his high ecclesiastic officials. Thus Boris’s dream of an autonomous
Church was practically realized; but Constantinople kept a nominal control, lest in the distant
future it might be useful.
The news came as an appalling shock to Rome; the Pope had never contemplated such
insubordination, such ingratitude in a barbarian, nor such wiliness and presumption in the gentle
old Patriarch, in whom, as the victim of Photius, he had condescended to place such trust. He
wrote in a tone of hurt surprise to Basil, asking what all this meant. [3] But Basil, though very
friendly,
1. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 242: Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Vita Adriani, pp. 1395-6: Idem,
Praefatio in Synodum VIII., p. 148; ibid., pp. 20 ff.
2. Idem, Vita Adriani, loc. cit.
3. Hadrian II Papa, Epistolae, p. 1310.
115
was quite unyielding. When Hadrian died, in December 872, the check had been in no way
recovered.
Rome, however, still hoped. She could not believe that this triumph, this extension of her realm
almost to the very gates of the hateful Patriarch’s city, had been so very ephemeral. All her
energies were devoted to winning back the vaunted land. Even in the north were felt the
reverberations of the struggle. A decade now had passed since the Macedonian brothers had set
out to convert Moravia. With the help of their Slavonic liturgy and the goodwill of the Moravian
monarchs—the great King Rostislav, and Kocel, prince of the country round Lake Balaton—
their work had been crowned with success; but, to ensure its permanence, Cyril had decided,
with remarkable broad-mindedness for a friend of Photius, that it must be confirmed by Rome.
Constantinople was too far away, with the bulk of Bulgaria in between, to be able always to
watch and to protect. Cyril’s overtures, however, somewhat embarrassed the Papal Court. The
Popes could not wholeheartedly approve of missionary enterprise that was not conducted in the
Latin tongue. But, in the desperation of his struggle against Photius, Pope Nicholas had been
eager to accept so great a prize, even at the price of recognizing the Slavonic liturgy. To make
sure of the future, he summoned the brothers to Rome. He died before they arrived, and his
successor, Hadrian, was a more uncompromising statesman. But, in view of the support given
them by the Moravian lay powers and with Constantinople in the background, Hadrian could not
do otherwise than receive them with honour [1] and set his approval upon all that they had done.
To silence opposition he had their disciples consecrated by that notorious anti-Greek, Formosus.
While they were at Rome, Cyril, the
1. The honourable reception was largely due to the fact that St. Cyril brought with him the relics
of St. Clement.
116
younger but more brilliant of the brothers, died, and Methodius was left to carry on the work
alone.
Methodius was sent back to Moravia, authorized to use the Slavonic liturgy wheresoever he
chose. Hadrian had determined to found him a diocese, but was still uncertain of the details when
news came through of the terrible defection of the Bulgars. At once Hadrian subordinated his
Moravian to his Bulgarian policy. Hoping to use the weapon of the Slavonic liturgy to capture
the Bulgars, he revived for Methodius the old diocese of Sirmium, whose seat was on the very
edge of their dominions and whose jurisdiction spread along the length of their northwestern
frontier. But this seductive scheme was never given a fair trial; Methodius on his return found his
patron Rostislav fallen; his nephew and successor Svatopulk, though he attained to independence
and dominions even exceeding his uncle’s, was, all the same, deeply attracted by German culture
and despised the Slavonic liturgy as plebeian and unimpressive. Under his patronage the German
bishops were able to imprison the valiant missionary as an impertinent impostor. Before his
protests could reach Rome, Pope Hadrian was dead and John VIII was installed in his place. [1]
John VIII had not come under the influence of the Bulgar disappointment. The tradition of
Nicholas was forgotten; Rome went back to the thunder of intransigeance. John thought he could
terrify the Bulgars into obedience. One of his first actions was to write Boris a letter in which he
threatened the Bulgars and all the Greek clergy with excommunication, ‘that thus they may join
the Devil, whom they have imitated.’ [2] Meanwhile, careless of Methodius’s persuasive
influence, and trusting
1. For the history of Methodius in Moravia, see Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 209 ff.
2. Johannes VIII Papa, Fragmenta, Ep. 7, p. 277.
117
on Svatopulk’s fondness for the Latin tongue, he released Methodius from his German prison,
but forbade him the use of the Slavonic liturgy. Methodius was in despair; to save Christianity he
ignored the order; but the situation was not one that would help him to win his neighbours for
Rome.
Boris remained unmoved by the Pope’s fulminations, particularly as in Croatia and along the
Dalmatian coast Latin influence was dying, and the local States were airing their independence
or falling under the suzerainty of the Eastern Emperor. Experience taught John that he must
employ milder methods. In February 875 he wrote again to the Bulgarian Court, still sternly
forbidding the Bulgars to receive the sacrament from Greek priests, under the penalty of being
considered schismatic. [1] Boris in reply sent an embassy to Rome to pay his respects there, and
continued to encourage the Greek clergy. A simultaneous letter from the Pope to the Emperor
asking for Ignatius to face his trial at Rome produced even less effect. [2]
But John was indefatigable. In April 878 his legates—Eugenius, Bishop of Ostia, and Paul,
Bishop of Ancona—set out for Constantinople, with instructions to call on the way at the Khan’s
Court. John was now trying a new method. The legates brought four letters with them for
Bulgaria. The first was addressed to the Greek bishops in Bulgaria, categorically ordering them
to leave within thirty days a diocese that belonged to Illyricum and so to Rome. [3] The second
letter was to Boris. Here John captured the tone of Nicholas. Boris was greeted with great
cordiality; the Pope only wished to warn him of the dangers of adhering to Constantinople, the
birthplace of so much schism and heresy. He reminded the Khan of the fate of the Goths,
baptized by the Greeks and soon
1. Johannes VIII Papa, Fragmenta, Ep. 37, pp. 294-5.
2. Ibid., Fragmenta, Ep. 40, p. 296.
3. Ibid., Ep. 71, pp. 66-7.
118
the victims of that dreadful Arianism. [1] The third letter was to Peter of Bulgaria, that relative of
Boris’s who twice had figured in embassies to Rome. John addresses him as an intimate friend
and begs him to use his influence on the Khan to bring him back to the see of Saint Peter. [2]
The fourth was to another Bulgar notable, apparently Boris’s own brother, probably the monk
Duks, urging him too to do what he could to further the cause of Rome. [3] Having delivered the
Bulgarian letters, the bishops proceeded to Constantinople with a letter to Ignatius, ordering him,
in the same severe language as the Greek bishops in Bulgaria had received, to remove his clergy
from Bulgaria within thirty days, under the definite penalty of excommunication. [4] A letter to
the Emperor Basil required him to aid the Papal legates in their work. [5] But all these letters
were written too late. On October 23, 877, the aged Patriarch Ignatius had died. No sooner was
he dead than Basil made the whole world gasp by appointing in his stead his rival, the ex-
Patriarch Photius. [6]
In Rome and in Constantinople the situation was entirely altered. But, in Bulgaria, things went
on just the same. Neither the Khan nor his nobles answered the Papal letters; nor did the Greek
clergy leave Bulgaria. Yet the Pope could not abandon his hopes. He had to evolve a new policy
with regard to Constantinople. To recapture Bulgaria first would help him so much. Once more
in 879 he wrote to Boris and to his bоyars , to Peter, Zergobul, and Sondok. This time the letters
were sent by the hand of John the Presbyter, his legate to Dalmatia
1. Johannes VIII Papa, Ep. 66, pp. 58 ff. In this letter he complained also about the interference
of George, the (Greek) Bishop of Belgrade, in Serbia or Pannonian Croatia.
2. Ibid., Ep. 67, pp. 60 ff.
3. Ibid., Ep. 70, pp. 65-6 ff. For the identity of the recipient, see Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 2, pp. 168-
70.
4. Ibid., Ep. 68, pp. 62-3.
5. Ibid., Ep. 69, pp. 63-5.
6. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 276.
119
and Croatia. There, even as he wrote, the sky was brightening; Zdeslav, the Byzantine-made
prince of Croatia, had just been deposed by Branimir, an adherent of the Roman faction.
Branimir would see to it that John the Presbyter reached Bulgaria safely. The Pope’s tone to
Boris was even more pleading and conciliatory; he apologized if the Khan had been displeased
by anything in his former embassy. [1]
Meanwhile, he was vastly cheered by his dealings with the Patriarch. Photius brazenly and
illogically, to please the Emperor, had sought Papal approval of his appointment. John, with that
unhappy passion for bargaining, known as realism at Rome, offered his consent on one
condition, a condition showing the greatest longing of his heart—that Constantinople would give
up the Church of Bulgaria. To his delighted surprise the Patriarch promptly agreed. Once again
Papal legates journeyed to Constantinople to take part in a peace-bringing council.
The council opened in November 879, and sat without a hitch. The Emperor Basil, in mourning
for his eldest son, did not attend; Photius managed it all as he chose. The Roman legates,
ignorant of the Greek language, were unaware that Photius’s self-justification, so enthusiastically
received by the 383 bishops present, had been facilitated by slight mistranslations of the Papal
letter; they also failed to realize that they subscribed to a resolution refusing the Pope’s wish to
prohibit the nomination of laymen to the episcopate, and to an anathema against all who added to
the Nicene creed—that is to say against all the Western Church guilty of the interpolation of
‘Filioque.’ The question of the Bulgarian Church was referred to the Emperor, who
condescended to decide in favour of Rome. Rome in its satisfaction would not, so
1. Johannes VIII Papa, Ep. 182, p. 146; 183, p. 147. He wrote again a month later (June 879) in
an equally friendly tone (Ep. 10,2, p. 153).
120
Photius calculated, challenge the authority of the decision: whereas, by establishing the
Emperor’s right to decide, Constantinople was safeguarded against the future. [1]
The legates returned in happy innocence to Rome, and Rome rejoiced at her victory. But the
Pope had carelessly forgotten that the persons most concerned in the transaction were the
Bulgarians themselves. Early in 880 an embassy arrived from Boris to the Papal Court. John was
full of hope, but the Bulgarian ambassador, a boyar called Frunticus, merely paid his master’s
respects and announced that everything was going very pleasantly in Bulgaria; and that was all.
However, John could not but regard it as a favourable sign; he sent back a letter teeming with
eager expectation, [2] and wrote, too, to the Emperor Basil to announce his contentment. [3] But
there was no reply from Bulgaria. John was puzzled and distressed. He wrote again at the close
of 880, to ask by what mischance no further embassy had been sent; the Croatian bishop,
Theodosius of Nona, had given him to understand that one was forthcoming. But again there was
silence; and silence greeted his next letter, written in 881. [4] John could not understand what
had happened. At last, towards the close of that year, the Bishop Marinus, Boris’s former friend,
returned from an embassy to Constantinople and opened his eyes to what had really happened at
the council of 879. In his fury, John deposed the two legates that had attended the council, and
excommunicated Photius. [5] But, as he wrote, the truth was dawning over him; he began to
understand why Photius had so smilingly given up his rights over Bulgaria. Photius had not
forgotten the Bulgarians. Photius realized that
1. Council of 879 in Mansi, xvii., pp. 365-530.
2. Johannes VIII Papa, Ep. 198, pp. 158-9.
3. Ibid., Ep. 259, pp. 228 ff.
4. Ibid., Ep. 298, p. 260; 308, pp. 266-7.
5. Stephanus V Papa, Ep. I, pp. 786-9: Hergenrother, Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, ii.,
pp. 576-8.
121
Boris could not wish to go back to Roman bondage; the ways of the Eastern Church suited him
far better. And Boris was well able to look after himself.
Rome was defeated. John had been cheated of his victory, outwitted by the Patriarch. Bulgaria,
the land for which Saint Peter’s successors had striven so hard, had eluded their grasp for ever.
But Pope John was not given long on earth in which to brood upon his bitter humiliation. On
December 15, 882, he died, poisoned, men said, by his enemies. The Bishop Marinus stepped
into his place—but there was something mysterious, something sinister, about the whole affair.
[1]
Boris had chosen the East rather than the West; and his choice was almost inevitable. At first
sight there might be some advantage in preferring the distant rule of Rome to the near-by rule of
Constantinople; but Rome could not really give him what he wanted, nor had it the same
attractions for him. In Constantinople the Emperor was supreme, and his supremacy was
sanctioned by the Church. He was not only Caesar, but also the viceroy of God, and therefore all
things, Caesar’s and God’s alike, could rightly be rendered unto him. In the West, on the other
hand, there was always a dual allegiance. The Roman Church refused to recognize its
dependence on any temporal power. Its ambitions were international, and its sole autocrat was
the Roman Pontiff; and he not only forbade the interference of any lay ruler, but aimed at
controlling even their unspiritual actions. Whatever Boris’s motives may have been in first
adopting Christianity, he certainly intended to use the conversion for his own ends in unifying
his country and perfecting his autocracy. His model was the Emperor; the Empire’s
Caesaropapism should be copied in Bulgaria. It was because Constantinople had been unwilling
to allow him the independence that he
1. Annales Fuldenses, pp. 395, 398.
122
wished that he had turned to Rome; but he soon learnt that Rome always aimed at a far stricter
control. It was only useful to him as a threat to hold over the head of Constantinople.
Then, apart from practical considerations, Constantinople would certainly impress the Bulgars
infinitely more than Rome. Their memories did not stretch as far back as the days when Rome
was mistress of the world and Constantinople was only still Byzantium, obscure in its distant
province. They saw Rome as she was in their time, a dirty town on a yellow river, rich only in
churches and prelates and vast, crumbling ruins. How could it compare with the wealthiest city
in all the universe, Constantinople, the home of art and of learning, with towers and gleaming
domes and never-ending walls, the merchant ships crowding in the harbours, the palaces teeming
with mosaics and tapestries, and the Emperor seated on his golden throne? All this glory had
been since first they crossed the Danube. Why should they cross the bleak Albanian mountains
and the windy sea to do obeisance in a dying town, when so much splendid life was at their
gates? Rome could not compete with Constantinople in the vigour and perfection of her
civilization; and already the Bulgars had come under the influence of the Greeks. Greeks had
built them palaces in Pliska and Preslav, had given them a written tongue in which to keep their
records, had painted them pictures and woven them stuffs. The Romans had done nothing for
them save to talk to them in unintelligible Latin and to issue them peremptory commands. It was
both natural and wise for Boris to make the decision that he made.
Had Boris been allowed to retain Formosus or Marinus, history might have been different:
though probably they, like him, would have grown to resent Papal interference. But destiny
forbade those ambitious prelates to side-track
123
their careers in Bulgaria. Both attained to the heights of the Papal throne, Marinus over a
poisoned corpse, and Formosus amid a storm and turmoil that tore him even from his grave.
Meanwhile, Greek was all the fashion in Bulgaria; Greek artisans came with Greek priests, to
build churches and houses suitable for Christian gentlemen. The Bulgars even strove to obtain
some part of the famous learning of the Greeks. The nobles hastened to send their sons to
Constantinople in order to perfect their education. [1] Thither among them came the Prince
Symeon, younger son of the Khan himself. Boris was well informed about events in the Imperial
Palace. He knew that growing up there was a prince, the youngest son of the Emperor Basil,
whom his father designed for the Patriarchal throne. Boris thought the idea excellent; it smacked
of true Caesaro-papism. His younger son should go to Constantinople, and should come back in
due course, stocked with Greek lore, to become Archbishop and Primate of Bulgaria. [2]
Fashions, however, change. Bulgaria was not to become a mere provincial annexe of Byzantium.
Thanks largely to their great Khans, the Bulgarian subjects had too strong a national feeling to
suffer absorption; and the Imperial statesmen, far-sighted in their moderation, and haunted by the
spectre of Rome, decided not to press Bulgaria too far. Their one aim now was to advance
Christianity in Bulgaria along lines that would most help Christianity, not the Empire. It was an
altruistic policy, originating largely in genuine missionary zeal; but also, like most altruistic
policies, it would probably pay in the end.
Towards the close of 881, while the Pope and the Patriarch were still officially friends, a
distinguished visitor
1. Photius, Ep. xcv., pp. 904-5. He put the Bulgar nobles under the charge of the Higumene
Arsenius.
2. Liudprand, Antapodosis, p. 87.
124
arrived in Constantinople—Methodius, the surviving apostle of the Slavs. [1] He had long
wished to revisit his fatherland; and Emperor Basil and Photius, his old friend, had much to
discuss with him. He returned to Moravia next spring, [2] but Basil kept back a Slavonic priest
and a deacon and certain liturgical books which the brothers had written in the Slavonic
language. The Imperial Government had learnt from the great missionary’s own lips of his
experiences; they were encouraged to emulate his methods. Rome had long profited by the work
of the Macedonian brothers; but Constantinople had sent them forth; she would profit now. And
she had one great advantage over Rome. The Romans could hardly bear to admit a liturgy in a
tongue other than Latin. The Greeks had no such prejudices; they saw the Georgians
worshipping God in Georgian, the Abasgians in Abasgian; and both the Georgian and the
Abasgian Churches recognized themselves, and were welcomed, as being under the
Constantinopolitan Patriarch. Basil and Photius decided to make use themselves of Saint Cyril’s
liturgy. A Slavonic school was founded at Constantinople, possibly with the idea of using it as a
training-ground for the conversion of the Russians, and certainly to aid in the good work in
Bulgaria. [3]
The year 885 was a turning-point in the history of Slavonic Christianity. That year Methodius
died in Moravia,
1. This visit of Methodius is only recorded in the Vita Methodii (Pastrnek, pp. 234 ff.), but it is
useless to regard it either as apocryphal or as marking a revolution in Methodius’s career. (See
Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 271 ff.) Zlatarski (op. cit., p. 219) follows Malyshevski (Kiryll i Methodi,
pp. 279 ff.), in dating it 883-4, but it must have occurred before the schism with Rome.
2. It is most unlikely that Methodius visited Boris of Bulgaria on his return, as Zlatarski (loc. cit.)
says. The only authority for saying so is the sentence in the Life of Saint Clement (p. 1201),
which says that Boris was specially favoured of Methodius. This need not mean more than that
Methodius was pleased with Boris’s career and had high hopes of him.
3. The existence of this school is nowhere stated, but it is distinctly implied by such stories as
that of the slaves in Venice. It was probably under the Higumene Arsenius, as Photius’s letter to
him (cit. above) implies.
125
his whole work on the brink of failure. John VIII had in the end supported him, but Marinus
threw him over, and Hadrian III and Stephen V continued against him, urged on by the
wholesale forgeries of Wiching, Latin bishop of Nitra, and by Methodius’s refusal to join Rome
in heresy and tamper with the Nicene Creed. Methodius’s death meant the end of the Slavonic
liturgy in Central Europe. He had named his ablest disciple, Gorazd, as his successor; but
Gorazd’s abilities were powerless against the torrent of Latin and German intrigue, reinforced by
the lay powers, by King Svatopulk. The leaders of the Slavonic Church—Gorazd, Clement,
Nahum, Angelarius, Laurentius, and Sabbas—were seized and imprisoned with their followers.
As they lay in prison sentence was passed. Many of the minor clergy were kept in captivity; the
more prominent were condemned to perpetual exile. One day that winter a little group of the
faithful, headed by Clement, Nahum, and Angelarius, was brought under guard to the Danube,
and there left to find its own fortune. [1]
That same winter an embassy from the Emperor Basil was visiting Venice. As he passed one day
the booths of the Jewish merchants the ambassador’s notice was struck by some slaves. On
inquiring, he discovered that they were Slavonic clergy sold by the Moravian lay powers as
heretics. He knew his master’s interest in such persons, so he bought them and brought them
with him to Constantinople. Basil was delighted, and received them with honour, and even
provided them with benefices. [2] Some went on soon, probably at the Emperor’s behest, into
Bulgaria, equipped with the Slavonic liturgy. [3]
But they were not the only newcomers to Bulgaria. Clement and his following came down the
Danube, longing to reach that country that seemed to them the Promised
1. Vita S. Clementis, pp. 1220-1.
2. Zhitiya Sv. Naum, ed. Lavrov, pp. 4-5.

3. Ibid., p. 5.
126
Land of the true orthodox faith. In time they came to Belgrade, the great frontier fortress, where
the governor, the Tarkan Boris, [1] welcomed them gladly and sent them on to the Court at
Pliska. The Khan’s welcome was even warmer than the tarkan’s; Boris was delighted to see
experienced and distinguished Slavonic missionaries, who would make him less dependent on
Greek clergy: while the Imperial Government, pursuing its altruistic policy, could make no
objection. The Court nobility followed its master’s lead; the officers of state hastened to offer
hospitality to the holy visitors. Ekhatch, the sampses, entertained Clement and Nahum, while
Angelarius lodged with a certain Tcheslav. [2]
The Greek clergy in Bulgaria were a little less pleased. They were not in a very strong position;
Basil and Photius were encouraging the Slavs. But it was always probable that Basil and Photius
would protest and take measures if things became too bad. The Greek clergy were, however, to
be robbed of that potential support. On August 29, 886, the Emperor died. His successor, Leo V,
detested Photius and at once deposed him; a youth of eighteen, the Emperor’s brother Stephen,
followed him on the Patriarchal throne. Leo, his youth embittered by a doubtful parentage and a
miserable marriage, was an apathetic, indolent statesman; he would never go out of his way to
intervene abroad. And the Patriarch, in his youthful inexperience, was an equally broken reed.
But the Greek clergy had one support; Boris himself was uncomfortable at rousing their
displeasure. The situation was a little difficult for him. The lower classes, the Slav peasants,
were, it seems, taking to Christianity willingly, if not enthusiastically; but the Bulgar nobility,
thinned though it
1. Βοριτακάνῷ τότε φυλάσσοντι. Boritacanus must, I think, be the Tarkan (provincial governor)
Boris.
2. Vita S. Clementis, pp. 1221, 1325.
127
had been by Boris’s treatment after its revolt, was growing up again. These Bulgar nobles,
naturally contemptuous of the new religion, were not likely to be impressed by Slavonic clergy.
They could be overawed by the Greek ecclesiastics with their majestic background of culture and
self-confidence, hierarchs whose mode of life was filled with refinement and whose minds saw
niceties that the crude Bulgar intelligence could never grasp. He took the only way out; the
Greek clergy remained at the Court, and the Slavonic clergy were sent to missionize the
provinces. Soon, probably in 886, Clement set off to take up his residence in Macedonia.
The Macedonian Slavs were the most recent of the Khan’s subjects; but they apparently had
accepted his rule with pleasure. They were, however, difficult to govern; they had joined
Bulgaria as being the great Slav State, and so they might resent the rule of governors drawn from
the old Bulgar nobility. Boris determined to bind them to his rule by means of Slavonic
Christianity. Christianity had barely as yet reached their lonely valleys, but a desire for
conversion was animating the whole Slavonic world. Boris was bidding for their souls against
the Empire, his one political rival in the south-west, which only gave them Greek Christianity,
wishing always to strengthen the Greek sections of the population. Then, the Slavonic
Christianity firmly established in Macedonia, it could in time be introduced all over the Bulgar
dominions; the Greek clergy, at present so useful, should one by one be replaced by Slavs, till at
last the Khans’ old dream should be realized. The Bulgar lords would be swamped in a sea of
Slavdom, and the Khan would rival the Emperor in Byzantium, and should rule a great Empire
bound, like his, with two strong bonds—a common faith and a common language.
Thus it was as the prelude of a vast new policy that
128
Clement was dispatched. In pursuit of it, Boris altered the government of Macedonia. Hitherto it
was one province, known as the ‘Colony’ [1]; Boris detached from it the districts farthest to the
south-west (where the nationalist propaganda and the missionary work would be most useful),
known as Kutmitchevitza and Devol, [2] and, recalling the local Bulgar governor, [3] sent to
administer it a lay official called Dometa [4] — probably a Slav;—at the same time he sent
Clement with Dometa, to act as spiritual adviser, and apparently as Dometa’s superior. [5]
Clement was given three residences in the Devol district and houses at Ochrida and at
Glavenitza. [6] Clement set to work in earnest in his civilizing mission; and Boris had the
satisfaction of seeing his scheme well started on its first important phase.
A year or two later, Boris showed his hand more openly. Nicephorus I, during the transportations
that he had made to bolster up the Greek or Anatolian element in Macedonia, had moved,
amongst others, many citizens from Tiberiupolis in Bithynia; and they brought with them to their
new Tiberiupolis, a town near the present
1. ‘ τοῦ κοτοκίου ’: I think this must be an adaptation of the Greek word ‘ κατοικία ,’ a colony.
2. Devol must be the district between Lake Ochrida, the River Devol, and the River Ozum;
Kutmitchevitza extended probably to the east and slightly to the south of Devol—the extreme
south-west of Boris’s dominion. See above, p. 104.
3. ‘ παράλυσας τὸν οὖτρον τῆς διοικήσεως, ’ Vita S. Clementis MS.: ‘παράλυσας ἑαυτον κτλ ,’
Moscow MS.: ‘παράλυσας αὐτὸν κτλ,3 text in the Patrologia Graeca (p. 1224). The first reading
makes best sense, if we assume ‘ οὖτρον ’ to be a Bulgar proper name. I cannot, however, follow
Zlatarski in saying emphatically that it is the same as Kurt (Zlatarski, op. cit., p. 229).
4. ‘ Δομεταν ’ in Ochrida MS.; ‘ Δοβετᾶν ’ in Moscow MS.; and printed in text in the Patrologia.
It seems to be a Slav name.
5. Vita S. Clementis, loc. cit. The hagiographer’s eloquence slightly obscures the exact
relationship, but it seems that Dometa was subordinate to Clement.
6. Ibid., loc. cit. Glavenitza has been identified by Zlatarski (Izviestiya, pp. 70 ff.) as being
between the upper waters of the Voiusa and the Ozum, near Mount Tomor.
129
Strumitsa, some sixty miles north of Thessalonica, [1] many of their holiest relics, those of Saint
Germanus and other saints martyred by Julian the Apostate. Now Tiberiupolis was part of the
Khan’s dominions. About this time miracles were reported; visions of Saint Germanus and his
followers were seen in the streets of Tiberiupolis, and their bones performed wonders. Boris
came to hear of it, and at once ordered the local governor, the Bulgar ‘Count’ Taridin, to build a
church for the relics in the diocese of Bregalnitsa and to move them to this new home. Probably
the church was to adorn the town of Bregalnitsa itself, a growing Slavonic village that was the
seat of a Bulgarian bishopric. The citizens of Tiberiupolis were furious at being robbed of
possessions so revered and so useful; they rioted and would not let them go. Taridin had to use
all his industry and tact to prevent the outbreak spreading. At last a compromise was agreed
upon. Saint Germanus was allowed to remain in peace at Tiberiupolis; three only of his saintly
comrades were taken—Timothy, Comasius, and Eusebius. Their relics were conveyed with
honour to Bregalnitsa, performing miracles as they journeyed. There they were received into the
new church, and clergy were appointed for them to hold the liturgy in the Slavonic tongue. [2]
The new Christianity was creeping over Bulgaria.
Boris was well pleased. He had seen his country through the vastest revolution in its history; he
had inherited it as a great power, he had made it a great civilized power. He could vie now on
equal terms with the Frankish monarchs, even with the Emperor himself. And his country’s
Church was his to control; he had made the world realize that. The versatile bargaining and the
dogged persistence
1. See above, p. 55. Tiberiupolis is located by Zlatarski (Istoriya, i., 2, p. 236).
2. Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, Historia Martyrii XV Martyrum, pp. 201-8.
130
had triumphed in the end. And now his schemes were leaping higher, and still successfully. Soon
Bulgaria would have one national Church, to bind it together and to enhance the glory of the
Khan. Boris could rest now. His conversion had been sincere; it was from genuine piety even
more than from policy that he had built so many churches and monasteries, and the purity and
austerity of his life had long been admired throughout the Christian world. Now, ill and weary,
he decided to retire from the world, to give himself up utterly to a life of devotion. In 889 he
abdicated in favour of his eldest son, Vladimir, and entered into a monastery, probably into
Nahum’s great foundation, the monastery of Saint Panteleimon by Preslav. [1] All Christendom
was edified by this renunciation; men told of good King Boris in Germany and Italy. [2]
But Boris had done more than convert his country; he had shaped its destinies for ever. Since the
days of Krum Bulgaria had faced two fronts. Was she to expand on the West on the middle
Danube, where German culture came filtering through and where there was no lasting power to
oppose her, only the ephemeral principalities of the Slavs? Or was she to remain in the Balkans,
looking to the East and battling against the eternal walls of New Rome? Omortag had leaned on
the West, and Boris, toying with the Roman Church, had almost made himself a Central
European potentate. But in the end he chose the Christianity of Byzantium, the Christianity best
suited to his country. And by so doing he anchored Bulgaria for ever in the Balkans.
1. For the monastery of Saint Panteleimon, the ruins of which are now called Patleina, see
Zlatarski in Izviestiya na Bulgarskiya Archeol. Institut, vol. i., pp. 146-62. I incline to think that
Symeon’s movement of the capital to Preslav (see below, p. 136) was due to his father’s
presence close by.
3. Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, op. cit., p. 201: Regino, p. 580: Manegold of

Lautenbach, p. 364: Sigebert, p. 341.
Book III THE TWO EAGLES
CHAPTER I
Emperor of the Bulgars and the Romans
By his wife, christened Maria, Boris had six children —Vladimir, Gabriel, Symeon, Jacob,
Eupraxia, and Anna. [1] Gabriel probably died young, and possibly Jacob also; Eupraxia became
a nun, and Anna no doubt married—it may be, into the Moravian royal house [2]; Symeon had
entered the church; and Vladimir was to succeed his father on the throne.
Vladimir had been a crown prince for too long. He must now have been nearing his fortieth year,
for he had accompanied his father to the Serbian war in the old heathen days. And, like all
impatient crown princes, he was filled with the spirit of opposition to his father’s policy. Of the
inward history of his reign we know little, save that he received an embassy from King Arnulf of
Germany in 892. [3] It seems that no sooner was Boris safely hidden from the world in his
monastery than the new Khan upset all his reforms. The old Bulgar aristocracy, that Boris had so
firmly cut down, had grown up again to an effective height; and Vladimir fell under its influence.
The bоyars had disliked Boris’s Christianity, with its austere
1. The names of the royal family are given in the marginal notes to the Cividale gospel as
patronising some monastery (Rački, Documenta Historiae Chroaticae, pp. 382-3). Vladimir is
called there Rosate, probably his pre-Christian name.
2. The Anonymous Hungarian historian says that King Salanus (Svatopulk II) of Moravia was
connected by marriage with the Bulgar king (at that time Symeon). Such a statement from him
must naturally be taken with reserve; but if, as is quite likely, there was such a connection, it
would almost certainly be through one of Symeon’s sisters marrying the Moravian King. It is
unlikely that Symeon’s first wife could have been a Moravian princess (Anonymi Historia
Ducum Hungariae, p. xli.).
3. Annales Fuldenses, p. 408. The envoys entered Bulgaria down the River Save. Vladimir is
called Landimir or Laodimir.
133
134
and autocratic tendencies. In contrast, Court life became extravagant and debauched, and there
was even an official attempt to reintroduce the old pagan rites and idolatries.
But Vladimir and his boyars had reckoned without Boris. Immured though he was in his
monastery, he knew what was going on outside. For four years he let them be; then, when he saw
his life-work being too seriously endangered, he emerged. His prestige as a terrible saint was
enormous; with the help of a few older statesmen he easily took possession of the Government.
Once again in power, he sacrificed his paternal feelings for the good of his country. Vladimir
was summarily deposed and blinded, and so passes out of history. [1]
This was the last attempt of a pagan revival—its dying throe. It was doomed to fail; no one could
expect the lower and middle classes to revert to a cruder and more oppressive religion at the
behest of semi-alien overlords, and the overlords themselves were guided more by political than
by spiritual motives. Boris had only to reappear to cause the whole business to collapse. But it
was rather a delicate situation for Boris. In dethroning his son he had saved Christianity, but he
had endangered its corollary. He acted warily. Summoning a congress from all his kingdom
(how it was composed we cannot tell—probably of the Court nobility, the provincial governors
or their representatives, the ecclesiastical authorities, and any other outstanding citizen), he
justified his interference on the grounds of religion, and then bade them accept as their monarch
his younger son, the monk Symeon. [2]
1. Regino, p. 580: Manegold, p. 364: Sigebert, p. 341: Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria,

Historia XV Martyrum, p. 213; Chudo Sv. Georgiya, pp. 19-20.
2. Regino, loc. cit. Boris threatened Symeon that he would treat him similarly should he
relapse—a needless threat to a pious monk, but one probably calculated to show that only on
religious grounds could the monarch be deposed, and only Boris as an ex-monarch could effect
the deposition.
135
At the same time, he took the opportunity of the presence of the congress to complete his last
great reform. The seed that Clement was sowing in Macedonia—work uninterrupted, it seems,
by Vladimir’s reign—and that Nahum was sowing nearer to the capital, had taken root
sufficiently; it was time to replace the Greek tongue by the Slavonic throughout the Bulgarian
Church. [1] There were several reasons for doing this now; it is probable that there was a
vacancy in the Bulgarian archiepiscopate; it is possible that the Greek clergy was too closely
connected with the Court aristocracy; and certainly it was a good moment for a measure that
might displease the Empire—Basil and Photius were dead, and the Emperor Leo and his brother
the Patriarch were too indifferent and weak to oppose the fulfilment of a movement that even
their great predecessors had regarded as inevitable. Moreover, Boris calculated, the enforcing of
Slavonic as the one national language of Bulgaria would submerge for ever the conscious
exclusiveness and superiority of the old Bulgars. The Children of the Huns were to lose their
identity; Bulgarian was to mean now Slav and Bulgar alike, any subject of the Bulgarian
monarch—who was the Sublime Khan no longer, but the Knyaz, the Slavonic Prince. With the
change in the language, it is probable that the organization of the Bulgar Church was completed,
to fit the new state of things. Some time about now the country was divided up between seven
metropolitans under the Archbishop of Bulgaria—the metropolitans of Dristra, Philippopolis,
Sardica, Provadia, Margum (or Morava), Bregalnitsa, and Ochrida. [2] Most of their dioceses
had
1. See Zlatarski, Istoriya i., 2, pp. 254 ff. It is inherently probable that the change was effected
now and his arguments are, I think, conclusive, though I think that the process was more gradual
than he allows; the Greek language did not fall entirely into disuse.
2. Zlatarski, op. cit., pp. 207 ff., dates their creation in 864; but it seems obvious from Saint
Clement’s career that Ochrida at least dates from later.
136
been organized before, particularly those in Eastern Bulgaria; the diocese of Bregalnitsa was
being organized in 889. [1] The diocese of Ochrida had probably not yet come into being—
Macedonia was still too wild. But Clement’s missionary work had advanced now far enough for
a bishopric to be created for him. He became bishop of the dual see of Debritsa (Drembitsa) and
Belitsa, two small towns between Ochrida and Prilep. [2] Later their importance was
overshadowed by Ochrida.
In connection with these ecclesiastical reforms another great change was made. Joseph, the new
Archbishop of Bulgaria, had his archiepiscopal seat not at Pliska, but at Preslav. [3] The capital
was being moved. [4] Pliska, the Hunnish capital, with its memories of the great heathen Khans,
was no longer suitable. The Christian Prince should dwell at Preslav, close by the monastery of
the Panteleimon and the Christian college of Nahum.
When all this was done, Boris returned to his cloister. His work was really finished now. Before,
he had rested too soon; Vladimir had been a broken reed. But this time he was certain. He could
devote himself for ever now to religion; nor would he help his country ever again save by his
prayers. He had helped it enough already— enough to have his name everlastingly revered as the
greatest of all its benefactors.
1. See above, p. 129. Boris’s transference of relics from the Greek town of Tiberiupolis to
Bregalnitsa was clearly incidental to the founding of the new diocese.
2. Vita S. Clementis, p. 1228. Zlatarski (op. cit., pp. 269 ff.) identifies Drembitsa and Belitsa.
The Vita S. Clementis says that Clement was ap pointed by Symeon (who succeeds Vladimir on
Vladimir’s death, which is mentioned without comment), but that he was the first Slav bishop—
i.e. his was probably the first appointment made after the change of language, or else the
Archbishop Joseph was of Greek origin.
3. His name is supplied in the Sinodik Tsaria Borisa (ed. Popruzhenko, Odessa 1899), pp. 74-5,
and in the Chudo Sv. Georgiya, loc. cit. For the whole question see Zlatarski, Bulgarski
Arkhiepiscopi Patriarsi, passim.
4. A note to a copy of the Book of Isaiah informs us that Symeon moved the capital.
137
The new Prince, Symeon, was a far better son than Vladimir. He was about thirty years of age.
[1] Much of his life had been spent at Constantinople, living, it seems, in the precincts of the
Palace and studying probably not only at Photius’s Slavonic college but also at the University.
Certainly he became a proficient Greek scholar, with a taste for the works of Aristotle and
Demosthenes. Indeed, he was sometimes known as Hemi-Argus, the half-Greek. [2] Of recent
years he had taken monastic orders, being, it may be, designed by his father for a Bulgar
patriarchate, and was living in a Bulgarian monastery, probably with his father in the
Panteleimon. His Christian zeal was undoubted. Nevertheless, there were some unfavourable
comments when he renounced his vows and resumed a very secular life in order to ascend the
throne. [3]
If the statesmen at Constantinople had hoped that the accession of the ‘half-Greek’ meant the
revival of their influence in Bulgaria, they were sadly disappointed. Symeon’s devotion to Greek
literature only had the effect of making him wish for it to be translated into the vernacular. The
decade following the official adoption of the Slavonic language and alphabet bore an amazing
crop of literature. The Bulgarian people, long restricted in their writing to Greek characters and
language or perhaps a few runic signs, [4] suddenly had found a means of expression. But the
blossoming was not altogether spontaneous; a heathen illiterate empire, however great, will not
at once turn into a vigorous bed of flowering culture. Bulgarian
1. Nicholas Mysticus (Ep. xxix., p. 181) calculated in 923 that Symeon was then over 60.
3. Liudprand (loc. cit.) speaks of the incident with disapproval; but he gathered his material
about Symeon in Constantinople, after Symeon’s wars against the Empire.
4. Khrabr implies that the Slavs employed such signs, but certainly no traces of them survive in
the Balkans.
138
literature only became a natural growth a century later, when Christianity and letters had had
time to permeate through. [1] At present it was called into being by the active patronage of the
Prince. Symeon wished his people to enjoy the treasures of Byzantine civilization; he
encouraged translations to be made not only of holy and patristic works, but also of suitable
romances. Consequently the first Bulgarian writers were mainly translators; and their work has
that somewhat artificial air given when the matter is more sophisticated than the language.
Nevertheless, it was a creditable beginning for any literature. Already, ever since he had settled
in Macedonia, Clement had been busily translating. He had found himself greatly handicapped
by the prevalent ignorance of Greek; and the people were very stupid. [2] The only hope lay in
copious translations. But Clement was indefatigable. He could draw on the works of his great
masters, Cyril and Methodius, and he supplemented them as best he could. By the end of the
century he had made Ochrida one of the most renowned centres for the dissemination of
Christianity and culture; and when he began to retire from active life his work was amply carried
on by his old fellow-disciple, Nahum, who came over from Preslav to take on the bishopric of
Ochrida. [3]
But at present Clement’s Macedonian school was overshadowed by the royal school of Preslav.
There translations were being made on all sides. Symeon himself even superintended a collection
of explanatory extracts from the Fathers; and the preface paid a flattering tribute to
1. The Bogomil legends really represent the first spontaneous Bulgarian literature.
2. Vita S. Clementis, p. 1229.
3. Vita S. Clementis, loc. cit. and ff.: Zhitya Sv. Naum, pp. 4—5: Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 2, pp. 351
ff.
139
his patronage, calling him the ‘new Ptolemy, who like the industrious bee gathers the juice of all
the flowers, to spread it over the bоyars.’ [1] A Bishop Constantine translated some homilies for
holy days and the works of Saint Athanasius [2]; the Presbyter Gregory translated the chronicle
of John Malalas, and also a romantic tale of Troy for the ‘book-loving Prince.’ [3] John the
Exarch, at the behest of the royal monk Duks, brother of Boris, translated John Damascene and
wrote a Shestodniev, an adaptation of Saint Basil’s Hexameron. John, writing probably a little
later than the others, was more adventurous, and wrote chapters of his own composition. To his
John Damascene he wrote a preface that gave a short history of Slavonic letters and discoursed
on the difficulties of a translator—what is one to do when the words are of different genders in
Greek and in Slavonic?—and to his Shestodniev he added an epilogue praising the glories of
Symeon’s Court at Preslav. [4] Even the royal family produced an author, Tudor (or Theodore),
son of Duks; but only a small prologue of his survives. [5]
But all these translations were valueless unless the public could be persuaded that Slavonic was a
suitable medium for literature. It was to justify its use that the first original Bulgarian work was
written. Shortly after the adoption of the Slavonic liturgy the monk Khrabr wrote a little apologia
on the Slavonic alphabet, in which he pointed out that though Hebrew, Greek, and Latin
1. Sbornik na Tsar Simeona, preface.
2. Given in Archbishop Antony’s Ep. Konstantin Preslavski. I do not think that Constantine’s see
can be identified; it cannot have been Preslav, which had other occupants.
3. Kalaïdovitch, Ioann Eksarkh, pp. 138 ff.
4. Idem, op. cit., p. 138: John the Exarch, Shestodniev, which gives full text.
5. Given in Pripiskata na Tudora Chernorizets Doksov, by Gorky i Nevostruev, pp. 32—3. His
relationship to Symeon has been worked out by Zlatarski, Koi e bil Tudor Chernorizets Doksov
(see Bibliography).
140
were the languages sanctified by their use in the Scriptures and by the Fathers, that did not
exclude the permissibility of Slavonic; for, after all, the Greeks once used the Phoenician
alphabet, and, anyhow, the Greek alphabet was created by a heathen, whereas the Slavonic was
created by that Christian saint, Constantine or Cyril. The treatise is a conscientious piece of
polemic writing, occasionally naive in style and argument, and just occasionally bearing the
mark of one who felt that the ice was thin. But it must have served its purpose well, making the
advocates of the new alphabet feel that they had divine sanction in adopting it. [1]
There was, however, one more difficulty about the new alphabet; but it seems to have died a
natural death. Saint Cyril’s ingenious brain had evolved two alphabets, those known to-day as
Cyrillic and Glagolitic. The former was based on the Greek alphabet supplemented by the
Hebrew, and probably represented his first attempt, destined for the Balkan Slavs near his home
at Thessalonica. But when he arrived in Moravia, where anything suggesting Greek propaganda
was deeply suspect, he found his alphabet a liability, and began again, arbitrarily distorting the
Greek letters, to disguise their origin, and generally elaborating the whole affair. This was the
alphabet to which Clement had been educated; he brought it to Bulgaria with him, and in it some
of the earliest Bulgarian manuscripts were written. But in a land where Greek culture was not
suspect, but, on the contrary, highly fashionable, there was no reason for the existence of
Glagolitic. Cyrillic, the alphabet that was no
1. Khrabr, in Kalaïdovitch, op. cit. pp. 190—2 passim. Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 2, pp. 853 ff.
discusses his identity, deciding that he was neither John the Exarch (Ilinsky’s theory) nor a
disciple of the school of Ochrida (Mazon’s theory). But his suggestion that he was Symeon in his
monastic days (ibid., p. 860) seems to me too fanciful. Also I think he is wrong in dating the
work before 893. It seems to me to have the unmistakable air of an apologia after the event.
141
doubt taught at the Slavonic college at Constantinople, was far simpler and far more practical.
Glagolitic inevitably gave way before it; but whether the victory of Cyrillic was in any way
hastened by official action we cannot tell. [1]
The literary richness was balanced by a growth of the arts and luxuries. Symeon had seen in
Constantinople the aureole of splendour that surrounded the Emperor and emphasized his
sanctity as the Viceroy of God; he understood its value for the cause of autocracy. In his new
capital of Preslav, Great Preslav, the renowned, [2] he attempted to magnify himself likewise.
The city began to blossom with churches and with the palaces built by the courtiers who
followed the prince’s lead. But the royal palace was the centre of it all; the glory radiated from
Symeon. The effect was the more overwhelming in that it was so suddenly created; nothing had
ever been seen like it in Bulgaria before. John the Exarch, in the dedicatory chapter of the
Shestodniev, attempted to describe the sensations of a visitor from the provinces, how he would
be overcome by the sight of all the great buildings, with their marbles and their frescoes—‘the
sights of heaven adorned with stars, sun, and moon, earth with the grass and trees, and the fishes
of the sea of all sorts, come upon him, and his mind is lost. He comes back despising his own
home and wishes to build himself as high as heaven.’ [3] In the midst of it all sat Symeon, ‘in a
garment studded with pearls, a chain of medals round his neck and bracelets on his wrists, girt
with a purple girdle, and a golden sword by his side.’ [4] John’s eloquence breaks down under
the strain of describing it
1. For the Cyrillic-Glagolitic question, see Appendix IX.

2. Preslav means renowned. The name was frequently given to cities all over the Slav world.
3. John Exarch, Shestodniev, p. 47.
4. Ibid., p. 46.
142
all; he can only complain that he is guilty of understatement. His visitor departs to exclaim to his
friends that ‘it is impossible to tell of the splendour, beauty, and orderliness, and each of you
must see it for yourselves.’ [1] Symeon’s object seems, therefore, to have been achieved; but it is
doubtful if beneath this surface gorgeousness there was what to the eyes of Constantinople
would have seemed a respectable standard of civilization and comfort. [2] Moreover, outside the
capital there were no luxuries to be found; John the Exarch’s visitor lived in a house of straw. [3]
Even in Ochrida the oldest stone-built churches date from a century later. [4] But that perhaps
was not unintended. Symeon wished Preslav to be the centre of Bulgaria, even as Constantinople
was of the Empire. His hope was forlorn; his capital, like his literature, had been artificially
forced. Geography, that had made Constantinople the greatest port and market of the mediaeval
world, had given no such lasting advantages to the little inland valley among the low mountains
where Preslav lay. To-day of that great city, which even three centuries later [5] covered an area
far greater than any other Balkan town, only a few meaningless ruins remain.
Indeed, though the traveller to-day may still marvel at the greatness of the site, [6] it is hard for
him to envisage its past glory. Of Symeon’s vast palace little has been
1. John Exarch, Shestodniev, p. 46.
2. Certainly in 927 Maria Lecapena took all her furniture, etc., with her to Bulgaria. See below,
p. 179.
3. John Exarch, op. cit., p. 46.
4. Probably coastal towns such as Anchialus or Develtus, built and still largely inhabited by
Greeks and Armenians, had higher standards; and the formerly Imperial fortresses inland
probably retained a few buildings; the Red Church at Philippopolis seems to date at least from
the early ninth century. The first Ochridian churches date from Samuel’s reign.
5. In the days of Nicetas Acominatus (p. 486).
6. It was shaped roughly as a solid pentagon, its sides averaging some 2 kms. in length. The
Great Palace or Inner City occupied about 1/8 th of the whole area. The walls of both cities can
be traced, the latter’s still in part standing.
143
unearthed, but what is bare reveals only foundations and a few marble columns. The city has for
centuries been a quarry for the Turks, just as it itself was probably built from old Roman cities,
such as Marcianopolis. [1] The churches that have been excavated—Symeon’s in the outer city
[2] and Boris’s at Patleïna—bear greater traces of splendour. To anyone coming from
Constantinople, their size is unimpressive and their decoration must have seemed coarse. It
consisted of marble slabs and mosaics, applied, as far as can be judged, without much delicacy;
but its main characteristic was the copious use of ceramic tiles, some plain, others ornamented
with simple patterns singularly free from Byzantine influence, resembling rather peasant art as it
is found throughout the world. But at Patleïna a ceramic icon of St. Theodore has been found,
quite Byzantine in feeling and showing a high state of technique. To-day it stands unique, but
whether it was always a unique climax of the art of Symeon’s Golden Age, we cannot now
know. [3]
Though literature and refinement might need an artificial stimulus, Bulgarian trade and
commerce were flourishing naturally. The main industry of the country was agriculture, and
probably Bulgarian cereals and beasts helped to feed the Imperial cities of the coast and
Constantinople itself. Mines were worked, and their produce swelled the royal revenues.
Moreover, the Bulgarian dominions lay across great trade routes. The busy trade that passed
between the Steppes of Russia and Constantinople went as a rule by the sea along the western
shore of the Black Sea; but some of it must have
1. The marble is certainly from Asia Minor. Symeon may have added to his stores in his raids on
the suburbs of Constantinople.
2. Built, according to a MS. at Moscow, in 907.
3. Now in the museum at Preslav. The workmanship seems to me to be certainly native. The
circumstances of its discovery clearly indicate that it dates from the first monastery on the site,
i.e. before A.D. 900.
144
travelled overland through Preslav and Adrianople or by a coast road, and some through Dristra
to Thessalonica. There was another trade route, almost equally important, which could not avoid
Bulgaria; this was the route from Central Europe, which entered the Balkan peninsula at
Belgrade and, like the railway to-day, forked at Nish, one branch leading through Sardica (Sofia)
and Philippopolis to Adrianople and Constantinople, the other cutting due south across to
Thessalonica. This meant a steady flow of merchandise passing through Bulgaria, and enriching
on its way the Bulgarian traders or the Greek and Armenian subjects of the Prince. [1]
Symeon watched with care over his country’s commercial welfare; and, early in his reign, his
intervention in its interests set going a train of circumstances which for a moment seemed likely
to destroy Bulgaria and all its new-born culture, and which in the end served to confirm for ever
the Balkan destiny that Boris had planned for his country. Ever since Tervel’s day trade between
Bulgaria and the Empire had been carefully organized, and by now the Bulgarians had their
counters at Constantinople (probably in the Saint Mamas quarter, along with the Russian
counters) where they took their merchandise to distribute it to the Imperial merchants. In the year
894 [2] an intrigue in the Imperial Court resulted in two Greek merchants, Stauracius and
Cosmas, securing the monopoly of the Bulgarian trade. They thereupon not only put heavy
duties on the goods, but also insisted on moving the counters to Thessalonica—corruption was
easier to manage at some distance from the capital. All this naturally upset the Bulgarians, and
they complained to Symeon. He at once made representations before the
1. The trade routes are given by Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Administrando Imperio, pp.
79, 177. The Thessalonican routes must, however, be considered in connection with the episode
related below.
2. I discuss the date below.
145
Emperor. But the dishonest Greek merchants were under the protection of Zaützes, the
Basileopator, the all-powerful father-in-law of the Emperor; Leo therefore ignored Symeon’s
embassy and the scandal went on. Symeon thereupon decided to have recourse to arms, and
prepared to invade Thrace. The main Imperial armies, under Nicephorus Phocas, the hero of the
Italian wars, were away in the East fighting the Saracens; Leo could only send against the
invaders unseasoned troops, under Procopius Grenites and an Armenian, Curticius. These, in
spite of their numbers, Symeon had no difficulty in routing; the two generals were slain in battle,
and the captives had their noses slit. The Bulgars then advanced through Thrace up to the capital
itself.
Leo next tried diplomacy. He had sent that year an embassy to Ratisbon to King Arnulf—
probably before the war broke out, as a counterblast to Arnulf’s embassy to Vladimir in 892—
but his ambassador was not well received. [1] But now he had a far better plan. Ever since the
days of Omortag the wild Magyars had been established on the Steppes right up to the Bulgarian
frontier on the River Dniester, if not by now to the Pruth. In 895 he sent the patrician Nicetas
Sclerus to the Magyar settlements and proposed to the Magyar chieftains, Arpad and Kurson,
that they should invade Bulgaria; he promised that ships should be sent to convey them across
the Danube. The Magyars gladly agreed, especially as they were feeling somewhat pressed on
their eastern borders by an even wilder nation, the Petchenegs; they gave hostages and the treaty
was concluded. Leo then summoned Nicephorus Phocas from Asia and fitted out the Imperial
fleet under the Admiral Eustathius. These
1. Annales Fuldenses, p. 410. The ambassador had only one audience, and left the same day.
There was a second and more successful embassy in 896, but it is doubtful if it had any great
bearing on the Bulgarian war (ibid., p. 413).
146
latter preparations were really intended just to overawe the Bulgarians. Now that Symeon was
going to have the Magyars to deal with, Leo would have preferred not to fight; he had no wish to
magnify Magyar power at the expense of Bulgarian, and, besides, his tender Christian
conscience made him dislike to fight fellow-believers. He sent the Quaestor Constantinacius to
warn Symeon of the coming Magyar invasion and to suggest a peace treaty. But Symeon was
suspicious and truculent; he had learnt in Constantinople how subtle Imperial diplomacy could
be, and probably he disbelieved in the story about the Magyars. Constantinacius was put in
custody, and no answer was returned.
Symeon was soon disillusioned. As he prepared to meet Nicephorus Phocas in Thrace, news
came to him that the Magyars had arrived. He hurried north to meet them, but was defeated. In
despair he retreated to the strong fortress of Dristra. [1] The Magyars advanced, pillaging and
destroying. At the gates of Preslav they met Nicephorus Phocas, to whom they sold Bulgarian
captives in thousands. The Bulgarians were in despair. They sent to Boris in his monastery to ask
for advice; but he could only suggest a three days’ fast and offered to pray for his country. The
situation was saved by far less reputable means—by Symeon’s diplomatic trickery.
When he realized the seriousness of his state, he sent through Eustathius to ask the Emperor for
peace. Leo was glad to comply. He ordered Phocas and Eustathius to retire, and sent the
Magister Leo Choerosphactus to discuss terms. This was exactly what Symeon had wished.
When the Magister Leo arrived he was detained under guard at the fortress of Mundraga: while
Symeon, free of the embarrassment of half of his enemies, set out to
1. Dorostolum, the modern Silistria.
147
attack the remainder, the Magyars. In a great battle he succeeded in defeating them and driving
them back across the Danube. The struggle was so bloodthirsty that even the Bulgarians were
said to have lost 20,000 knights. Victorious over the Magyars, Symeon informed the Magister
Leo that his terms now included the release of all Bulgarian captives recently bought by Phocas
from the Magyars. The unhappy ambassador, who had not been able meanwhile to communicate
with his Government, returned to Constantinople, along with a certain Theodore, a familiar of
Symeon’s, to see what could be done.
Leo wished for peace, and was prepared to give up the prisoners. He had never regarded the war
with enthusiasm, and just recently he had lost the services of Nicephorus Phocas, another victim
to his evil genius, Zaützes. Symeon, discovering this, determined to fight on. He waited until all
the prisoners were returned to him, then, declaring that some had been kept back, he appeared
again in full force on the Thracian frontier. The new Imperial commander, Catacalon, lacked
Phocas’s ability. He came with the main Imperial army upon Symeon at Bulgarophygon, and
was utterly routed. His second-in-command, the Protovestiarius Theodosius, was killed; he
himself barely escaped with a few refugees. The battle had been so ghastly that one of the
Imperial soldiers determined thereupon to renounce the world, and retired to receive beatitude
later under the name of Luke the Stylite. [1] It was now the year 897.
Symeon was again master of the situation; and Leo Choerosphactus again set out to make the
best peace that he could. It was a thankless task. Much of his correspondence with Symeon and
with his own Government survives, and shows the trials that he had to face. Symeon
1. Vie de Luc le Stylite, pp. 300-1.
148
was in turns cunning, arrogant, and suspicious; he felt, it seems, that his adversaries were his
mental superiors, and so he mistrusted their every gesture lest it should hold some sinister further
meaning that he did not see. His letters would contain phrases on the verge of being offensive; he
declared that ‘neither your Emperor nor his meteorologist can know the future’—a remark very
galling to a monarch who prided himself on his prophecies. [1] The chief difficulty was that
Symeon was unwilling to give up, even at a price, the prisoners, estimated at 120,000, that he
had recently taken. Ό Magister Leo,’ he wrote, Ί promised nothing about the prisoners. I never
said so to you. I shall not send them back, particularly as I don’t clearly see the future.’ [2] But
the prisoners were eventually returned, and the ambassador secured a better peace than might
have been expected. The Emperor agreed to pay a yearly subsidy, probably not large, but we do
not know its size, to the Bulgarian Court [3]; but Symeon, so far from making any new
annexation of territory, gave back thirty fortresses that his lieutenants had captured in the theme
of Dyrrhachium [4]; and the Bulgarian counters apparently remained at Thessalonica. [5]
The reason for this moderation was not far to seek. The contemporary Arab historian Tabari told
a story of how the ‘Greeks’ were at war with the ‘Slavs,’ and the Greek
1. Leo Choerosphactus, Ep. iii. (Symeon to Leo), p. 381. The Emperor Leo prophesied correctly
his brother’s reign, and had a great reputation for his predictions, whence came his surname ‘The
Wise.’
2. Ibid., Ep. v. (Symeon to Leo), p. 382. This was the complete letter.
3. That this tribute existed we know from Alexander’s refusal to continue the arrangement made
by Leo (Theophanes Continuatus, p. 378, and Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. vii., p. 57). He suggests
that the arrears should be paid up.
4. Leo Choerosphactus, Ep. xviii. (to the Emperor Leo), p. 396.
5. In the De Administrando (loc. cit.) the trade routes are calculated from Thessalonica.
149
Emperor was reduced to the expedient of arming his Moslem captives, who defeated the Slavs,
but were thereupon promptly disarmed again. [1] The story is obviously fanciful; at most the
Emperor may have provided arms for the duration of the emergency to the settlements of
Asiatics in Thrace. Symeon was held in restraint by events from a very different quarter. When
the Emperor called in the Magyars against him, Symeon decided that he too would draw on
diplomacy, and he bribed the Petchenegs that lay beyond to attack the Magyars in the rear. The
result was not altogether what he had wished. When the Magyars, defeated in Bulgaria, returned
to their homes—the lands across the Dniester that they called Atelkuz—they found them
occupied by the Petchenegs, the one race of which they were mortally afraid. They had to
migrate; and so with all their families and all their belongings they crossed the rivers once more
and then moved to the west, over the Carpathian mountains into the Central Danubian plain, to
the banks of the Theiss, the frontier between the Bulgarian and Moravian dominions. It was a
suitable time for them. The great King Svatopulk had died in 894, and his successors were effete
and quarrelsome. Their opposition was easily overcome. By the year 906 the Magyars were lords
of the whole plain, from Croatia to the Austrian marches and Bohemia. [2]
Symeon could not let this pass unchallenged. Transylvania and the valley of the Theiss were of
no great importance to him, save for their salt-mines, whose produce was a great Bulgarian
export. But no proud king can
1. Tabari in Vasiliev, Vizantiya i Araby, vol. ii., Prilozheniya, p. n. Dvornik (op. cit., pp. 304-5)
places credence in this story and follows Marquart (Osteuroäische Streifzüge, pp. 517 ff.) in
doubting the account given in the De Administrando of the Petchenegs—Dvornik doing so on
the grounds that the Annals of Fulda do not mention it. But on diplomatic matters Constantine
Porphyrogennetus is by far the most reliable writer of the time.
2. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 168 ff.
150
endure to lose vast provinces without striking a blow. But, though we know that his troops
fought the Magyars, of the extent of the fighting we know nothing. According to the Magyars,
the Greeks helped the Bulgarians, but they were both defeated. [1] Probably after a few
unsuccessful skirmishes Symeon cut his losses and evacuated the land. His vast trans-Danubian
Empire was reduced to the plain of Wallachia. [2]
The coming of the Magyars had far-reaching effects on Bulgaria and the whole of Europe. At the
moment and for nearly a century their presence seemed to their neighbours—Slav, Frank, and
Greek alike—an unmitigated nuisance; they were chiefly remarkable for their efficient and
incorrigible raiding. But far-sighted Frankish and Greek statesmen could see them as a
deliverance and a blessing. Hitherto there had been a solid and prolific mass of Slavs spreading
from Greece and Italy to the Baltic. Were they ever to unite—and that was not inconceivable—
their predominance in Europe was assured. But now a wedge had been driven right in the midst
of them; the Northern and the Southern Slavs were separated for ever. They would each go their
own way now. With this new enemy in their midst, they could not expand further. The
neighbouring races were saved.
But though the Slav world in the end was to lose by it, on Bulgaria the effect of the Magyars was
as a stimulant. Boris had laid down that Bulgaria should be an Eastern Power. Now there was no
alternative. She was cut off entirely from the middle Danube and the West; it was
1. Anonymi Historia Ducum Hungariae, p. xli.
2. In the absence of any definitive statement, it seems best to assume that Symeon only retained
Wallachia, which he lost a few years later to the Petchenegs. The Magyars certainly acquired
Bulgarian Transylvania and Pannonia; Moldavia, over which Symeon’s hold was weak, probably
fell to the Petchenegs.
151
useless to sigh over hopeless ambitions there. Bulgarian ambassadors were no more to journey to
Aachen or to Ratisbon; the road was blocked, and so they would forget it. Symeon’s longings for
greater power must be realized now in the Balkans. He turned his eyes hungrily on Serbia and
Croatia, and most of all upon the Eastern Empire. And certainly strange things were happening
there.
The years immediately following the war were spent peacefully enough, in the adorning of
Preslav and the literary blossoming that Symeon patronized; but the relations between Bulgaria
and the Empire were at times somewhat strained. This was chiefly due to minor acts of Bulgar
aggression in Macedonia. The Bulgarians obliged the Greek cities of the Macedonian plain to
pay them tribute, and were accustomed to pillage the countryside if this was not forthcoming. [1]
In the year 904 the Arab pirate, Leo of Tripoli, already famous for his raids on the coasts of the
Aegean, suddenly descended upon the great city of Thessalonica. There was no time to organize
a proper resistance; the city was taken and sacked, and vast numbers of the population killed or
made prisoners. It so happened that at the time there were two officials passing through
Thessalonica, the one the Cubicularius Rhodophyles, a eunuch, carrying gold to the troops in
Sicily, the other the Asecretis Symeon, carrying gold destined for the Bulgarians, the tribute sent
on behalf of the Macedonian cities. During the disaster they hid their gold. Rhodophyles was
captured by the Saracens and ordered to reveal the hiding-place; but refusing to betray his trust,
he suffered a martyr’s death. Symeon was less heroic, but wiser. He offered the whole of the
hoard to Leo of Tripoli on condition that he destroyed the city no further and sailed away. The
bargain
1. John Gameniates, De Excidio Thessalonicae, p. 496.
152
was successfully struck and kept, and the asecretis was rewarded by the Emperor. [1]
But the Bulgarians in Macedonia forwent their tribute. In revenge they moved down into the
plain and began to settle. The Greek population had been enfeebled and reduced by its terrible
experience; it appealed to Constantinople. The ambassador Leo Choerosphactus set out once
more to the Bulgarian Court to protest. Symeon did not want a war just then, so he agreed to
withdraw his people. [2] But he insisted on a fresh delineation of the frontier; the new line ran
within fifteen miles of Thessalonica itself. [3]
This restraint on Symeon’s part may have been due to his father’s influence; but Symeon was
soon to lose his advice for ever. On May 2nd, 907, Boris died. [4] Outside Bulgaria no one
noticed it; he had retired so long ago, and Germany, where men had told of him with awe, was
far too far away now that the Magyars roamed between, and in Constantinople the busy Greeks
thought of other things. Yet it was the end of one of the greatest lives in history. Clement
survived his great patron for
1. John Gameniates, op. cit., pp. 569 ff., 574 ff. Vita Euthymii, pp. 53—4: Theophanes
Continuatus, p. 368: Cedrenus ii., pp. 262-3. The story is a little muddled; only the Vita
Euthymii (which is, however, one of the most reliable authorities) mentions that Symeon was
bearing tribute to the Bulgars—he calls it ‘ φιλικὴν δεξίωσιν ’—the others merely connect
Symeon with Rhodophyles, who was bound for Sicily. It seems clear that the two officials were
travelling together. The fact the Symeon was at Thessalonica shows that this was not the yearly
tribute to Preslav, but a local tribute which was, however, paid from Constantinople.
2. Leo Choerosphactus, Ep. xviii. (to Emperor Leo), p. 396.

3. This is proved by two columns, dated A.M. 6142 (A.D. 904), found on the river Narish (22
Km. from Thessalonica). The columns were placed by the Olgu Tarkan Theodore. (Uspenski, in
Izviestiya Russk. Arkhaeolog. Inst. v Konstantinopolie, vol. iii., pp. 184 ff.). Zlatarski (Istoriya,
i., 2, pp. 340 ff.) gives a rough frontier-line, but bases it on the list of bishoprics in Leo VI’s
reign: which is not conclusive—e.g. Develtus is at this time included as an Imperial bishopric,
though it was certainly a Bulgarian town. Probably its Greek population used the Greek rite and
so did not depend on the Bulgarian archbishop, but directly on the Patriarch.
4. Tudor Doksov, pp. 32-3.
153
nine years, dying in harness in 916. Nahum, who left Preslav to retire to a monastery that he
founded at Ochrida, had died in 906. [1]
Peace lasted a few years more, varied only by a small Magyar raid through the west of Bulgaria
to Dyrrhachium [2]; but meanwhile Symeon was watching with eager interest the curious
happenings at the Court of Constantinople. The Emperor Leo the Wise was most unfortunate in
his marriages. His first wife, a saint whom he disliked, had died without surviving issue; his
second wife, the daughter of Zautzes and his mistress for many previous years, died leaving only
a daughter. Of his two brothers, one, the Patriarch Stephen, had died in 893, the other, the co-
Emperor Alexander, was childless and debauched. A third marriage was against ecclesiastical
law, and Leo himself had denounced it in his codification; but under the circumstances he felt
justified in considering himself above the law. But his third wife also died leaving no child
behind; and soon, it seems, his only daughter followed to the grave. Leo, in despair, might have
then resigned himself to the extinction of his dynasty—a judgement on its bloodstained,
adulterous origin; but suddenly a new factor arose. He fell in love with a dark-eyed lady, Zoe
Carbopsina, of the family of Saint Theophanes. At first he only took her to the Palace as his
acknowledged mistress; but late in the year 905 she bore him a son, Constantine surnamed
Porphyrogennetus. Leo found it now imperative to marry Zoe and so legitimize his heir. But in
Nicholas Mysticus, the friend that he had placed on the Patriarchal throne, he met unbending
opposition; Nicholas as Patriarch could not condone anything so outrageous as a fourth marriage.
At last he suggested a
1. Vita S. Clementis, p. 1236. Zhitie Sv. Nauma, ed. Lavrov, p. 41.

2. The Magyar leaders lost their way and never returned (Anonymi Historia Ducum Hungariae,
p. 46). Nestor, p. 19, mentions this raid as having reached the neighbourhood of Thessalonica.
154
compromise. His terms, offering to baptize and recognize the boy on condition that the mother
left the Court, were accepted, but broken by the Emperor. Three days after the baptism, in
January 906, Leo quietly married his mistress and crowned her Augusta. This was a direct
challenge; and Nicholas—proud, domineering, and fearless—took it up. All attempts to patch a
peace failed. Leo secured the support of the Pope and of the other Eastern Patriarchs, all of them
jealous of the see of Constantinople; but Nicholas remained obdurate, and on Christmas Day
closed the doors of Saint Sophia in the Emperor’s face. Leo retorted a few weeks later by
arresting him and sending him into exile. His place was taken by a gentler, more subservient
monk, Euthymius the Syncellus.
Leo had triumphed, but by force, in the face of pious opinion. There were many that believed
that God’s viceroy the Emperor was above all law, but many others believed that even he was
bound by the laws of God’s Church. Once more the whole question of Church and State was
raised, and Constantinople was rent with controversy. Leo’s triumph was ephemeral and
superficial. Nicholas’s exile to half the city was martyrdom, and his party was thereby heartened.
Besides, Leo’s health was poor; he would die soon. Alexander, his brother, hated him and all his
ways. But he was sunk in dissipation; he too would die soon. Even the little boy on whom the
future hung was very delicate. Wherever men looked, the sky was overcast; a storm was blowing
up. [1]
Symeon, in the new-made glories of his palace at Preslav, was well informed of what was
happening. He waited for the waters to be troubled; and schemes and ambitions flitted through
his mind.
1. Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 360 ff.: Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xxxii., pp. 197 ff.: Vita
Euthymii, passim. I have dealt more fully with the episode in my Emperor Romanus Lecapenus,
pp. 40 ff.
155
On May 11, 912, the Emperor Leo the Wise died, and the Emperor Alexander took over the
government of the Empire. Everything at once was reversed. Nicholas came back from exile and
Euthymius was sent out in his place; a new martyrdom succeeded to the old, and embittered the
conflict. The Empress Zoe retired from the Palace; her son was only saved from castration by
friends insisting on the poorness of his health. All the ministers of the old regime were
dismissed, some to die in prison. Meanwhile Alexander enjoyed himself, with drink and idolatry
and gaming and his favourites. [1]
A few months after Alexander’s accession a Bulgarian embassy arrived in Constantinople.

Symeon, very correctly, was sending to congratulate the new Emperor and to ask for a renewal
of the treaty concluded with Leo. Alexander received them immediately after indulging in an
orgy, and, with drunken bravado, he sent them away, curtly refusing to pay any tribute. The
ambassadors returned to Symeon to tell of their reception. He can hardly have been distressed;
he had an excellent reason now to break the peace, and the Empire, under this dying drunkard,
would never be able to withstand him. He prepared for war. [2]
There was no need to hurry; the Empire was going from bad to worse. Alexander died on June 4,
913, leaving the government in the hands of a Regency Council, dominated by the Patriarch
Nicholas. [3] This was all to Symeon’s advantage. Nicholas, fearless foe though he was to the
Emperor, was always anxious to conciliate Symeon; he never forgot that he was Oecumenical
Patriarch, spiritual father of the Bulgarian Church; he was determined to leave the patriarchate
no weaker
1. Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 377 ff. : Vita Euthymii, pp. 61 ff.
3. Ibid., p. 380: Vita Euthymii, pp. 69, 70.

156
than he had found it. Clearly he would have therefore to pacify the Bulgar monarch and keep
him from the temptations of independence or of Rome. It was to this anxiety that we owe the
long series of letters, sometimes reproachful, but almost all pleading, that he addressed to the
Court of Preslav—letters whose delicately varying temper form the main source of the history of
these years.
In August 913, Symeon in full force invaded the Empire. Nicholas, in vain, had tried to dissuade
him, appealing to his better nature not to attack a little child, and to his worse nature by offering
to send the arrears of the tribute at once to Develtus. [1] But neither appeal could move the
Bulgar. His aims were far higher.
His invasion followed on the heels of a military rebellion, [2] and the Imperial Government was
in no position to oppose him. Marching quickly through Thrace, he appeared before
Constantinople and stretched his great army along the line of the land walls from the Golden
Horn to the Marmora. But the sight of the city’s huge fortifications daunted him; it was the first
time that he had seen them with the eyes of an enemy, and he realised how impregnable they
were. He decided to negotiate.
Nicholas was delighted. There followed a series of friendly interviews. First Symeon sent his
ambassador Theodore into the city to see the Regents; then the Regents and the young Emperor
in person entertained Symeon’s sons at a feast at Blachernae [3]; and finally Nicholas went out
to visit Symeon himself, and was received with marked
1. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. v.—vii., pp. 45—60, esp. pp. 53, 57.
2. The revolt of Constantine Ducas, Domestic of the Schools.
3. Scylitzes (Cedrenus, ii., p. 282) says that Symeon himself was entertained at this feast, but the
earlier chronicles agree that only Symeon’s sons came (see references below). Byzantine
etiquette rarely permitted foreign monarchs to enter Constantinople. Even Peter of Bulgaria, who
married Maria Lecapena, was only allowed inside the city for one brief interview (see below, p.
179), and then only to the Blachernae Palace, adjoining the walls.
157
respect. Meanwhile terms were discussed. Symeon was moderate in his demands; he received the
arrears of the tribute and a great many presents, and a promise that the Emperor should marry
one of his daughters. With these he returned to Bulgaria. [1]
These terms require a little explanation. Their key lies in the fact that it was now, I think, that
Symeon first definitely formulated to himself the ambition that soon came to dominate him. He
aimed at nothing less than becoming Emperor. Already his refusal to be contented with the usual
tribute showed that he was hoping for greater things; and now, through this marriage, he was
going to get a legitimate foothold in the Palace. The idea was not so fantastic as it might seem.
The Empire was still a universal international conception; men of many diverse races had
climbed on to the throne. None, it is true, had been already seated upon foreign thrones; but that
surely would act to their advantage. And the present was so hopeful a time. With the Imperial
family reduced to one delicate boy, the future seemed to lie with the strongest person at hand.
And no one would be stronger than Symeon, with a daughter established in the Palace, the
Patriarch as his friend, and his huge armies ready at any moment to descend upon Thrace; and,
once Constantinople was his, the Empire would be his, for Constantinople was the Empire. His
was by no means an impossible ambition. Fortune, however, did not favour him: though thereby
Bulgaria was fortunate. For these dreams were a betrayal of Boris’s policy. Boris’s Bulgaria,
with its national language and national Church, was too immature as yet to stand absorption with
the Empire. A century later it was different; Bulgaria was an established
1. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 385. Logothete (Slavonic version), p. 126. I discuss the marriage
question (which certainly dates from these negotiations) below in Appendix X.
158
nation. But now the various Slav tribes and the Bulgars would have fallen apart, and the Greek
Imperial spirit would have triumphed. Boris’s work would have been undone.
But these speculations are idle; for Symeon made a miscalculation. He did not realize how
precarious the Patriarch’s Government was. Nicholas was regent for a child whose legitimacy he
could scarcely recognize, and, Patriarch though he was, he was only a party leader. The other
party had a leader whose claim to the regency was far stronger and far more logical. The
Empress Zoe, mother of the Emperor, though now she was temporarily in unwilling retirement
as a nun, had a large following; and soon Nicholas’s fellow-regents, tired of his domination,
came round to her side. Hardly had Symeon arrived back in Bulgaria, when Zoe emerged from
her retreat and took charge of the Government. [1]
Zoe had none of Nicholas’s preoccupations. It mattered nothing to her if he lost his titular
headship over the Bulgarian Church. And she was determined that her boy should not marry a
barbarian. Nicholas remained on in the patriarchal chair, but he had no voice now in the
Government. All Symeon’s moderation and cajolery were wasted. He had recourse to arms once
more. In vain Nicholas wrote to him reminding him of his promise of peace. Symeon considered
himself released from his obligations; the new Imperial Government carefully forgot the clause
about the marriage. [2]
In September, 914, Bulgarian forces appeared before Adrianople; and the Armenian governor of
the fortress was induced to betray it into their hands. But the Empress was a vigorous ruler. At
once she sent men and
1. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 383: Vita Euthymii, p. 73.
2. Nicholas never mentions it in his letters to Symeon till after Romanus’s accession, when .we
hear that Symeon had been demanding it for a long time before.
159
money to recover it; and the Bulgarians found it more prudent to retire. [1] After this essay of the
Empress’s temper, Symeon waited a little. The history of the next two years is very obscure.
Symeon made no move against Constantinople; but, in 916, if not in 915, his troops were
actively engaged in raiding the provinces farther to the west, by Dyrrhachium and Thessalonica.
[2] In 916 they even penetrated as far as the Gulf of Corinth, and intermittently remained in the
neighbouring districts for about ten years. Their presence did not tend for comfort; even Saint
Luke the Less, famed for his asceticism and mortification of the flesh, migrated for that period to
Patras. [3]
But Constantinople was Symeon’s real objective. By 917 he was again amassing an army on the
Thracian frontier. [4] He even attempted to win the support of the Petchenegs, his friends of the
previous war; but his ambassadors were outbid by the Imperial agent, John Bogas, whose
financial resources were no doubt larger. Under the circumstances the Empress decided to strike
first. The time seemed well chosen; she was flushed with the triumphs of her troops in Armenia
and Italy; and now there came the news that the Petchenegs were prepared to invade Bulgaria
from the north. Her fleet sailed to the Danube to carry them across, and the full Imperial army
marched up through Thrace to the frontier. [5]
Symeon was caught. The Petchenegs were far worse
1. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 384. The governor was abetted by the Archbishop Stephen Bees,
Epidromai Boulgaron, pp. 368-9.
2. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. ix., p. 76.
3. Vita S. Lucae Minoris, p. 449. Saint Luke lived ten years in Patras, and only returned after
Symeon’s death. But I do not think that the ten years should be taken too literally; for Bulgarian
armies were busy elsewhere in 917 (when Diehl, in Choses et Gens de Byzance, pp. 3-4, dates
this invasion) over the Achelous campaign, and in 918 in Serbia. It seems better to connect the
invasion with the acts of aggression reported in 916 from Thessalonica.
4. Nicholas Mysticus, loc. cit., p. 672.
5. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 387. For Zoe’s successful foreign policy see my Emperor
Romanus Lecapenus, p. 53, and elsewhere.
160
than the Magyars, and he could scarcely hope to repeat his cunning diplomacy of twenty years
ago. But fortune favoured him, so unexpectedly that we can hardly doubt that he supplemented
fortune by bribery. John Bogas arrived at the Danube, guiding the Petcheneg hordes; but there he
quarrelled with the Imperial admiral, Romanus Lecapenus, and Romanus refused to transport the
barbarians. They, weary of the delay, would not wait; after devastating and probably half-
occupying Wallachia, they returned to their homes. Contemporary opinion suspected Romanus
of some sort of double-dealing. Nothing was proved. Romanus was certainly ambitious and
unscrupulous in his ambitions; one must suspect that Symeon’s gold also affected his actions. [1]
Saved from the Petchenegs, Symeon could face the future more confidently. He had probably, it
is true, lost his last province across the Danube, but the loss was of very little consequence; the
Danube made a far better frontier. Still, the whole main army of the Empire was nothing
negligible. But fortune was kind to Symeon once more. The Empress was a poor judge of a
soldier. Her commander-in-chief, the Domestic of the Schools, was Leo Phocas, son of the great
soldier Nicephorus, but quite without his father’s ability. His campaign was well enough
planned. After the fiasco on the Danube, the Imperial fleet had come down the coast to
Mesembria, the peninsula-port beyond the frontier-line, still held by the Empire. Thither Phocas
directed his army, hoping probably for reinforcements before he struck inland to Preslav.
Symeon waited on the hills, watching for an opportunity. It came as the Imperial troops rounded
the head of the Gulf of Burgas, and turned north-west towards
1. Theophanes Continuatus, loc. cit., and ff. There is no means of telling definitely when
Bulgaria lost Wallachia, but it seems to have been overrun by Petchenegs well before Symeon’s
death, probably from now; in 917 the Petchenegs had, one gathers, to come some distance to the
Danube.
161
Mesembria. There was a little stream called the Achelous, close to Anchialus. On August 20,
Phocas halted there, leaving his troops carelessly disposed. Suddenly Symeon swept down from
the hills on to the unsuspecting army. What exactly happened no one knew, save that there was a
panic and almost the whole Imperial army was slaughtered. The bones lay bleaching on the field
for half a century. Only Phocas and a few miserable fugitives ever reached Mesembria. Many of
the soldiers had fled to the coast; but the fleet which should have been at hand to rescue them
had sailed already for theBosphorus. [1]
The triumph revived all Symeon’s ambitions. He came marching down through Thrace towards
the capital. Zoe gathered together another army, but again she put it under Leo Phocas. Again
Phocas led it to disaster. As it lay at Catasyrtae, in the suburbs of the city, the Bulgarians
attacked it by night, and destroyed it. [2]
After this second victory Symeon might almost have attacked the city successfully, but he did
not dare; and even the Greeks had confidence that their walls were impregnable. Negotiations
were impossible; Symeon demanded what Zoe could not possibly give. And Nicholas, though for
the sake of the patriarchate he dissociated himself from Zoe’s policy, seems to have regarded
Symeon’s terms as being unthinkable. [3] But no further attacks were
1. Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 388 ff.: Cedrenus, ii., p. 286: Zonaras, iii., p. 465. Scylitzes
(Cedrenus) says that Leo Phocas was bathing at the time, and his riderless horse took fright and
caused a panic among the troops, who thought their general dead. This is quite possibly true. It is
clear that the army was taken utterly by surprise. Leo Diaconus (p. 124) tells that the bones were
still to be seen in his day. The Slavonic version of the Logothete (p. 12) calls the river the
Tutkhonestia. It is foolish to assume that Achelous must be a mistake for Anchialus, just because
there is a river Achelous in Greece.
2. Ibid., p. 390. No date is given for the battle, but it apparently followed close on the Achelous.
3. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. ix., p. 69. He says that he was not consulted about the campaign, but
he claims that it was justified. However, he seems to regard any prospect of arriving at terms as
impossible and is very despondent in tone.
162
made just yet. It was very late in the year; and Symeon retired to winter in Bulgaria.
The year 918 passed sadly and wildly in Constantinople. Zoe was falling from power. She had
always had enemies, and now her disasters had cost her the love of the populace. There was a
scramble to take her place. It would have been an excellent opportunity for Symeon to appear
before the city; and in the atmosphere of disloyalty and intrigue he might easily have won
admittance inside the walls. But Symeon never came. Zoe, despite her failures, had achieved one
great triumph; she had entangled Symeon elsewhere. For over half a century Bulgaria had lived
peacefully with her Serbian neighbours. During these years Serbia acquired the benefits of
Christianity, and looked to Bulgaria as the source of her culture. Of late, under her Prince Peter,
she had increased her territory in Bosnia and had reached a certain standard of prosperity. In 917,
just after the Achelous, an embassy from the Empress reached Peter’s Court and pointed out to
him the dangers of too great a Bulgaria. Peter was convinced by the argument, and undertook to
attack Symeon unexpectedly in the rear. But Peter had rivals; Serbia’s growth alarmed the
cognate maritime principalities, now under the hegemony of Michael, Prince of Zachlumia, an
unscrupulous pirate and brigand whose territory stretched along the coast to the north of Ragusa.
Michael already once had shown his enmity to the Empire by capturing the son of the Venetian
doge on his return from a visit of respect to Constantinople, and sending him to Symeon, from
whom the Venetians had to ransom him. [1] Now he heard of the alliance, and at once passed the
information on to Symeon. Symeon determined to strike first; accordingly, in 918, his Generals
Marmaëm and Sigritze invaded Serbia. They succeeded
1. Dandolo, Chronicum Venetum, p. 198.
163
in overrunning the country; and when Peter came to make peace with them they treacherously
seized him and carried him off to Bulgaria. In his place they set up his cousin Paul, a prince who
had long been a hostage at the Bulgarian Court. [1]
How long this Serbian war lasted we cannot tell; but apparently it occupied the whole
campaigning season of 918. Symeon, with his troops engaged in the west, could do nothing
against Constantinople. Possibly, also, he was being troubled by the Petchenegs; possibly he was
ill-informed about the true, desperate state of affairs at the Imperial Court. Certainly it was not
till the next year that he was able to march his armies southward again. And then it was too late.
Romanus Lecapenus had won the race for power. In March 919 he took possession of the
Imperial Palace; in April his daughter Helena was married to the young Emperor. He called
himself Basileopator; later, in September, he would take the title of Caesar; and before the year
was out he would be Emperor.
The war was lost. All Symeon’s victories availed him nothing. Romanus Lecapenus, a
discredited admiral of peasant origin, had climbed on to the throne by the very steps that Symeon
had hoped to use. [2] It would have
1. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 156—7. Constantine does not

date the war, but says that the Imperial negotiations with Peter took place at the time of the
Achelous. The negotiations may have been begun previous to the disaster, but it seems to me
impossible to explain Symeon’s inaction against Constantinople in 918, save by a Serbian war.
And even though Symeon did not go to Serbia himself (he never went campaigning in the west
in person), I do not think he could have sent an expedition to Serbia big enough to overrun the
country in 917. The three years’ intervals that Constantine gives between the Serbo-Bulgarian
wars need not, I think, all be taken as infallibly accurate.
2. Zlatarski (Istoriya, i., 2, pp. 399 ff.) says that in 918 Symeon took an Imperial title and raised
the Bulgarian archbishopric to a patriarchate. I cannot discover on what he bases this. It is
incredible that we should have no reference to such an action in Nicholas’s voluminous
correspondence. Romanus’s letters to Symeon protesting against his Imperial title date from after
the two monarchs’ interview (924, see below, p. 172); and it is clear from Symeon’s offensive
joke at the interview (see below, p. 170) that he still regarded Nicholas as the official spiritual
father of Bulgaria. It is quite possible, as Zlatarski suggests, that the Archbishop Joseph died in
918, and the Archbishop Leontius succeeded him; but, even though Leontius was created
Patriarch by Symeon, we need not assume that that happened the very moment of his installation.
Leo Diaconus’s words about Symeon taking the title of Autocrat (pp. 122-3) provide no
chronological data.
164
been well for Bulgaria had Symeon admitted his failure and sought to make the best peace
possible. Romanus would gladly have given very favourable terms; he eagerly wished for peace,
so as to consolidate his own position. But Symeon no longer showed the moderation of his
youth. Ambition, fed by his victories, dominated him now, and blunted his statecraft. He was
very angry, and determined to revenge himself on the usurper; and so the war went on.
In the late summer of 919 Symeon invaded Thrace once more, and penetrated to the Hellespont,
encamping opposite to Lampsacus. Nicholas wrote offering, if his health permitted, to come out
and interview Symeon; but the suggestion was not accepted. The Bulgarians met with no
opposition; after wasting the countryside, they returned to winter in Bulgaria. [1]
All through 920 Nicholas wrote anxious letters to the Court at Preslav, not only to Symeon, but
also to the Bulgarian Archbishop and to Symeon’s chief Minister, urging a peace. In July he
wrote to tell Symeon of the end of the schism caused by Leo’s fourth marriage—he tactfully
assumed that Symeon would be delighted to hear of this triumph of Romanus’s Government—
and to point out that Romanus had no connection with the previous Government (Zoe’s) and was
not responsible for its follies. [2] Next he reverted to Symeon’s old desire for a marriage-
alliance; Romanus, he said, was very willing for such a
1. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xcv., p. 301, written to Romanus when he was Caesar (Sept. to Dec.
919): Ep. xi., p. 84, written to Symeon.
2. Ibid., Ep. xiv., p. 100.
165
union. He affected to ignore the fact that the only marriage that Symeon desired was now
impossible. [1] Symeon returned no answer. Nevertheless, he did not invade Thrace that year.
His troops were engaged in Serbia once more. Romanus had sent the Serbian Prince, Zacharias, a
refugee at Constantinople, to stir up trouble against the Bulgarian client, Prince Paul. Zacharias
was defeated, owing to the intervention of the Bulgarians, and was carried off captive to
Bulgaria, to be used against Paul, should he be insubordinate. [2] Encouraged by Symeon’s
preoccupation with Serbia, Romanus talked of himself leading an expedition into Bulgaria; but
nothing came of it. [3]
In 921, after writing to Nicholas that his terms involved the deposition of Romanus, [4] Symeon
marched again on Constantinople; but at Catasyrtae, the scene of his victory four years before,
Imperial troops under a certain Michael, son of Moroleon, took him by surprise. The Bulgarians
probably suffered no great losses, but they decided to retire back on Heraclea and Selymbria. [5]
In response to a further letter from Symeon, Nicholas offered to go out and interview him there
[6]; but Symeon did not encourage him. He made it abundantly clear that he did not want gold,
or costly gifts, or even territory [7]; he insisted on Romanus’s deposition. It was something quite
easy to do, he maintained, not like raising his Bulgar soldiers from the dead. [8] But Romanus
was unlikely to consent to depose himself; and the Patriarch realised that he
1. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xvi., p. 112.
2. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, loc. cit. He says Paul had reigned three years, but, in view of
the sequence of events of these years, it would be more correct to say that Paul was in the third
year of his reign.
3. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xvii., pp. 113 ff. 4. Ibid., Ep. xviii., pp. 121 ff.
6. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xix., pp. 125 ff. 7. Ibid., Ep. xviii., pp. 121 ff. 8. Ibid., loc. cit.
166
was being mocked. [1] After spending the summer in Thrace, Symeon went back to winter in his
own country.
In 922 Symeon again appeared in the neighbourhood of the city. Romanus was anxious to save
from his devastation his palace at Pegae on the Bosphorus; he sent out an army to guard it; but as
it lay in the narrow valley there, the Bulgarians swooped down and massacred it or drove it into
the sea. After their victory Symeon lingered throughout the summer in Thrace; but, later in the
year the Greeks made a successful sortie and destroyed his camp. [2] Again he had to retire,
leaving nothing permanent behind him. During the winter his letters grew slightly more pacific
in tone; he even asked Nicholas to send him an accredited ambassador. [3]
These gestures, however, were probably only the reflection of Symeon’s more despondent
moments. Even while he made them he was arming himself. [4] In the spring of 923 he was
ready to fight again, and laid siege to Adrianople. The great fortress was valiantly defended by
its governor, Moroleon, but no relief force came from Constantinople; famine forced the garrison
to surrender. Symeon, thereupon, gave vent to his disappointed anger against the Empire;
Moroleon was brutally tortured to death. [5] But Symeon was unable to advance further. Trouble
broke out again in Serbia. It was always easy for Greek diplomats to point out how unnatural
was an
1. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xix., pp. 125 ff.
2. Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 401-3. No date is given for the sortie but it almost certainly
happened now. The Empress Theodora’s death, (Feb. 922), Sophia’s coronation (that month),
and the visit of the Curopalates (τηνικαῦτα) are inserted in the chronicles between the account of
the battle of Pegae and it, but probably the three social events were taken together to make a
paragraph, irrespective of their accurate dating.
3. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xxii., pp. 148-9.
4. Ibid, Ep. xxi., pp. 137 ff.
5. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 404. Undated, but almost certainly early in 923. It was probably
during this year that Symeon captured the city of Bizya (Veza) in Thrace, as is mentioned in the
Vita S. Mariae Junioris.
167
alliance between Serbia and Bulgaria; and Prince Paul saw the truth of it. But his attempt to
escape from Bulgarian tutelage failed; Symeon’s armies deposed him and set up Prince
Zacharias in his stead. [1]
The distraction made Symeon more amenable to negotiation, while at Constantinople men felt
correspondingly more cheerful. Romanus had gradually come round to a new policy, well
illustrated in his failure to try to relieve Adrianople. He would let Symeon invade Thrace as often
as he pleased, confident himself behind the walls of Constantinople, and hopeful that in the end
Bulgaria would exhaust herself by her efforts. Meanwhile, his main armies were sent to fight
more profitably in the east; he would employ foreign troops against Symeon. The Serbs, it was
true, were always being defeated, but he was negotiating, with every prospect of success, with
the Russians (now firmly established almost as far south as the mouth of the Dnieper), the
Petchenegs, and the Magyars. Under the circumstances he was less anxious for peace than the
Patriarch. And even Nicholas, writing to tell of these negotiations and of the defeat of the
Saracen pirate, Leo of Tripoli, adopted a new, patronizing air. [2] But, with Serbia crushed,
Symeon reverted as usual to his old insolence. He asked for an ambassador, but he made clear
that he clung to impossible terms. [3]
1. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, loc. cit., p. 157, dated three years after Zacharias’s revolt.
Henceforward my dating is radically different from Zlatarski’s (op. cit., pp. 427 ff.), as he dates
the interview between Symeon and Romanus in 923 instead of 924.
2. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 405: Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xxiii., pp. 149, 156. He says that it
was seventeen or eighteen years since Leo’s victory at Thessalonica. As he was calculating
roughly, there is no reason to prefer either seventeen or eighteen to nineteen. He also says that it
is only in deference to his wishes that the Emperors are not attacking Bulgaria themselves.
3. Ibid., Ep. xxvii., p. 173. Symeon’s previous letters, answered by Nicholas (Ep. xxiv.-xxv., pp.
157 ff.), were apparently more encouraging.
168
Nicholas then tried a new method. Since Zoe’s fall relations between Rome and Constantinople
had been strained, but in 923 the Pope was at last induced to send two legates, Theophylact and
Carus, to Constantinople, and then to Bulgaria, to use their influence in favour of peace.
Nicholas, in his anxiety, forgot his patriarchal pride so far as to welcome this intervention, and
wrote to Symeon begging him to respect the Papal representatives. [1] But Symeon had his own
scheme for dealing with the Pope. He knew the fragility of the alliance between Old and New
Rome. So he greeted Theophylact and Carus amicably enough, but his conversations, as the
sequence was to show, were very different from what Nicholas hoped. And meanwhile he was
planning one more great attempt against Constantinople. [2]
The attack was timed for the summer of 924. [3] Symeon was wiser now; he realized that the
land walls of the city were impregnable. But Bulgaria had no fleet; he was obliged to look round
for an ally. The Fatimid Calif of Africa was at war with the Empire and possessed many ships.
Symeon sent an embassy to the Court of Mehdia, to suggest an alliance whereby the necessary
sea power should be loaned to him. The affair was successfully arranged without the knowledge
of the Greeks, and the
1. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xxviii., p. 176.
2. According to Maçoudi (Prairies d’Or, ii., p. 14), the Black Bulgars in 923 invaded the Empire
as far as ‘Phenedia’ on the ‘Greek Sea,’ where they met Arab raiders from Tarsus. If, as is
probable, Phenedia was some Greek town on the Aegean, the Black Bulgars must have passed
through Balkan Bulgaria. But whether they came as raiders to Bulgaria also or as allies to their
distant cousins we cannot tell. The raid seems to have been of very little importance: though it
inspired Professor Vasiliev (Vizantiya i Araby, ii., p. 222) to see Symeon in relations with the
Arabs of Tarsus.
3. For my reasons for this date see my Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, pp. 246 ff. In that
discussion I omitted to mention Zlatarski’s argument that the date is proved by the A.M. date in
Nestor’s chronicle, which by his interpretation of Bulgar dating (with which I agree) comes to
923. But why Nestor’s A.M. should be right when no one else’s is and even his indiction is
wrong, I do not know. I do not think it can stand against the external evidence.
169
Bulgarian ambassadors were returning with the African representatives, when the ship in which
they were travelling was captured off the South Italian coast by an Imperial squadron. The
Emperor at once sent to the Calif and offered him a profitable peace; which was gladly
accepted—for the Africans had no desire to fight unnecessarily in the distant north-east; and he
kept the Bulgarians prisoners. [1] But, at the same time, seriously alarmed by Symeon’s
preparations, he sent also to Bagdad, to the other Calif, to arange a truce, so that his main armies
could come back to Thrace. [2]
In September Symeon in his panoply arrived before the walls of Constantinople. Once more the
sight of them daunted him. Probably only then did he learn that the African fleet was never
coming, and that, instead, the Imperial army was marching from the east. Once more, as eleven
years before, while the city awaited his onslaught, he merely sent to ask to see the Patriarch.
Hostages were exchanged and Nicholas hurried out to meet him. Symeon, enjoying this
subservience, demanded now that the Emperor should come instead. And even the Emperor
came, though Imperial Majesty would not hurry and elaborate preparations had to be made. A
strong, fortified pier was built out into the Golden Horn at Cosmidium and a wall erected across
the middle; over the wall the monarchs would converse. But the delay made Symeon impatient.
To show how terrible he was, how little awed by the venerability of the Empire, he spent the
time wasting the countryside, and even burning one of its holiest sanctuaries, the old Church of
the Mother of God at Pegae.
The interview took place on Thursday, September 9. Symeon came on to the pier by land,
surrounded by a
1. Cedrenus, ii., p. 536, undated, but clearly just before the 924 campaign.
2. Ibn-al-Asir (in Vasiliev, op. cit., Prilozheniya, p. 106).
170
glittering escort, some to guard his person and some to test the works of the Greeks—for
Symeon was mindful of Krum’s experience—and others as interpreters; for Symeon would not
pay lip-service to the Empire by using the Imperial language. When hostages had been
exchanged he advanced to the wall. The Emperor Romanus was waiting there. His coming had
been in contrast; he arrived with the Patriarch by water, in his yacht, with a humble mien, clad in
the holy cloak of the Virgin, and with few attendants—for he knew that he was attended by all
the glory and tradition of Imperial Rome.
Over the wall the monarchs greeted each other. Symeon began to talk flippantly, teasing the
Patriarch for being unable to keep his flock from quarrelling. [1] But Romanus brought the
conversation to a higher level, addressing a little speech to the Bulgar. It was a kindly homily to
a foolish inferior, telling of the duties of a Christian and the punishments in store for the
wrongdoer. Symeon was growing old now [2]; ‘to-morrow you are dust,’ warned the Emperor:
‘how will you face the terrible just Judge?’ Moral considerations insisted that Symeon should
cease from staining his hands with the blood of fellow-Christians; but at the same time Romanus
hinted that peace would be made financially advantageous to the Bulgarian Prince. [3]
Symeon was very much impressed. Indeed, peace was now the only practicable policy. He had
won many victories; from the walls of Corinth and Dyrrhachium to the walls of Constantinople
he controlled the countryside. But the city was strong and he had no ships. He had
1. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xxxi., p. 189.
2. Symeon was over sixty, according to Nicholas (Ep. xxix., p. 151, written in the winter of
923—4).
3. I quote the speech in full in my Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, p. 92.
171
arrived at the furthest limit of success within his reach, and it was not enough. And, faced with
the Emperor’s person, he was for a while overcome by the majesty of the Empire and the eternity
of New Rome. Hemiargus, half-Greek, as he was, he learnt in his youth the magnificence, in
conception and in execution, of the Imperial idea, which had lasted through the centuries before
ever the Bulgars were heard of; but he realized now that he could never be more than half-Greek
or half-Imperial. The other half was ineradicably Bulgarian, newly risen from barbarous
heathendom. Boris had been wiser and more fortunate; he never tried to be, nor could have been,
more than a Bulgarian prince; his aims were utterly opposite to Symeon’s, national, not
international. In his dealings with the Empire he was like a child, but an un-selfconscious child
who hopes to grow up soon, and meanwhile means to help himself as best he can, by himself or
through his elders. Symeon was like a clever, naughty child, who knows what a nuisance he
makes himself and how gladly the adults would like him to keep quiet, who sees through their
devices and understands their weaknesses and thoroughly enjoys annoying them, but who all the
while is conscious that he is a child and they are adult, with something about them far beyond his
grasp; and so he feels foiled and cheated and resentful. Similarly, as a naughty child is awed by a
dignified scolding, so Symeon was awed by Romanus’s speech. But, after a little while, the
effect wears off, and the conscious naughtiness begins once more.
Meanwhile, as the monarchs conversed, Providence sent a symbol. High over their heads two
eagles met and then parted again, the one to fly over the towers of Constantinople, the other
turning towards the mountains of Thrace. The message was both to Symeon and to Romanus, to
tell them that there would be two Empires
172
now in the Balkan peninsula—for a while, at least; but eagles die. [1]
Forced now to recognize each other’s independent existence, Symeon and Romanus agreed on
terms for a truce. Possibly they even discussed them in person at this conversation, but more
probably the details were arranged by their diplomats. In return for a large amount of bullion and
other valuable gifts and a yearly present of 100 scaramangia—robes richly embroidered, one of
the most luxurious articles manufactured in Constantinople— Symeon agreed to evacuate
Imperial territory, especially the fortified cities on the Black Sea that he had captured,
Agathopolis and Sozopolis, and possibly even Develtus and Anchialus, so as to allow the
Emperor a route by land to his city of Mesembria. [2] After these arrangements were made
Symeon retired peacefully home.
To some extent the peace was permanent; Symeon never invaded Thrace again. But he showed
himself to be in no hurry to hand over his conquests on the Black Sea. Romanus wrote more than
once to demand their restitution, and even refused to hand over the large consignment of gifts till
it was effected; he was, however, willing to pay the yearly scaramangia if Symeon withheld from
invasions. Symeon was quite agreeable to this. His
1. Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 405—7: Georgius Monachus, pp. 898-9: Georgius Harmartolus,
pp. 824 ff., etc.: Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xxx., xxxi., pp. 185 ff.
2. Romanus Lecapenus, Ep. i., ii. (ed. Sakkelion, pp. 40-5): Zlatarski, Pismata na Romana
Lakapena, pp. 8 ff., 10 ff. The names of the Black Sea fortresses are never given. The simplest
solution is to say that they were Agathopolis and Sozopolis, which may well have been captured
by Symeon in 924 or at some previous date since 917. But I am inclined to think that Develtus
and Anchialus were restored to the Empire in 927 (see below, p. 180), and they may well have
been mentioned now. That would give a more cogent reason for Symeon’s preferring to forfeit
valuable gifts rather than give them up. Agathopolis and Sozopolis had no importance for him;
but from Develtus an enterprising enemy could easily strike at Preslav.
173
retention of the Black Sea fortresses was hardly more than a gesture; the moral effect of the
interview was wearing off, and he wished to show himself unawed by the Empire. Actually his
policy was being completely altered. He could only be a Balkan monarch, but at least he would
be Emperor of the Balkans. Hitherto, as one who hoped to sit on the Imperial throne, he had been
punctilious in his use of titles, and willing also to recognize the spiritual suzerainty of the
Patriarch; his future Government would thus escape complications. But now he had no such
restraint. He decided to be Imperial even though he could not reign at Constantinople. Some time
in 925 he proclaimed himself Emperor of the Romans and the Bulgars, [1] a title conceived to
glorify himself and insult his enemies. The Emperor Romanus was extremely angry and wrote to
protest; but Symeon did not answer. [2] Instead, he sent to Rome for confirmation of the dignity;
and Rome, recently victorious over Greek interests in Illyricum, complied—the Popes had never
quite lost hope of securing Bulgaria. In 926 a Papal legate, Madalbert, arrived at Preslav, bearing
the Pope’s recognition of Symeon as Emperor. [3] This was the fruit borne by that visit of
Theophylact and Carus, of which Nicholas had had such sanguine hopes. But Nicholas had been
already disillusioned. The interview had shattered his belief in Symeon’s heart, and he
understood that Symeon had no more use for him now. He wrote twice to Symeon after the
interview, but both were the letters of an angry, bitter, ill old man. Then in May 925 a merciful
Providence gathered him to his fathers, before he could learn of the
1. ‘ Βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ρωμαίων καὶ Βουλγάρων. ’
2. Romanus Lecapenus, Ep., loc. cit.
3. Innocentius III Papa, Ep. cxv., pp. 1112-3, referring to the fact that Symeon, Peter, and
Samuel asked for and received Imperial crowns from Rome: Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum, iii., p.
103, telling of Madalbert’s embassy. Madalbert held a synod at Spalato in 927 on his way home.
See below, p. 176.
174
further enormities that his once beloved son would commit. [1]
The Emperor of the Romans and the Bulgars, whose cumbrous title was shortened by his people
to the Slavonic word ‘Tsar,’ [2] determined to have his own Patriarch also. His negotiations with
Rome delayed the appointment—for the Pope could scarcely be expected to approve —
consequently it was probably not till after Madalbert’s departure, late in 926, that Symeon raised
the Archbishop of Bulgaria, Leontius of Preslav, to the rank of a Patriarch. This presumption
passed unnoticed at Constantinople. The Patriarch Nicholas was dead; his successor, Stephen,
was the tool of the Emperor Romanus, who did not much care. [3]
Symeon’s new policy not unnaturally terrified the Serbs. It was obviously to the west that
Symeon would now seek to expand. This was indicated by his failure to evacuate Northern
Greece, where Bulgarian marauders remained till his death, raiding to the Adriatic coast and
even invading and occupying parts of the Peloponnese. [4] Under
1. Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. xxx. and xxxi., pp. 185 ff.: Theophanes Continuatus, p. 410.
2. Tsar is derived from Caesar, but probably came into use among the Slavs from the West when
Caesar or Kaiser was the same as Emperor. At Constantinople it was a lower title.
3. The foundation of the Patriarchate provides a difficult problem: the Sinodik na Tsar Borisa
clearly shows that Leontius was the first Patriarch and had his seat at Preslav; but, according to
the List of Bulgarian Archbishops, Damian of Dristra was the first. As I explain below (p. 182),
Damian was the first Patriarch recognized by Constantinople, in 927. Leontius must therefore
have been appointed by Symeon previously. But, in spite of Zlatarski’s conjectures, it seems
quite impossible that a Pope as well informed and aggressive as John X should have sent a legate
to Bulgaria and humoured Symeon’s desire for a crown, had Symeon already appointed an
autonomous Patriarch. The appointment must therefore have been made after Madalbert’s
departure, probably late in 926, but before Symeon’s death (May 927). Leontius thus only held
his new post for a few months.
4. See Bees, op. cit. passim, quoting a biography of St. Peter of Argos. He is also undoubtedly
right in placing here the episode of the raid on the village of Galaxidi (on the Gulf of Lepanto),
which took place in the time of the ‘Emperor Constantine Romanus’—i.e., the Emperors
Constantine VII and Romanus I. Sathas, Chronique de Galaxidi, places the raid in about the year
996 (see below, p. 230), but in view of the Emperors’ names, his arguments are unconvincing.
175
the circumstances very little Greek diplomacy was needed to induce Zacharias of Serbia to take
the offensive, in 925. Symeon sent his generals, Marmaëm and Sigritze, the previous conquerors
of the country, against him; but Zacharias was luckier than his forerunners. The Bulgars were
routed, and the generals’ heads sent as a pleasant gift to Constantinople. Symeon was
unaccustomed to such an experience, and he would not let it go uncorrected. There was still
another Serbian Prince living as hostage in Bulgaria, Tzeesthlav (Cheslav), whose mother was a
Bulgar. In 926 a second expedition set out against Zacharias, accompanied by Tseesthlav. This
time it was too much for the Serbian prince; he fled for refuge beyond the mountains to Croatia.
The Serbian lords and zhupans were then summoned by the Bulgars to come and recognize
Tseesthlav as their Prince. Under the promise of safe-conduct they came, only to be taken, prince
and all, into captivity in Bulgaria. The Bulgar armies then set about unopposed the conquest and
devastation of Serbia. The work was done thoroughly; the country became a wilderness and a
desert. The inhabitants escaped if they could over the frontiers; those that remained were
butchered. Symeon added a new but lifeless province to his Empire. [1]
It would have been well to stop now, but Symeon never knew when to stop. The annexation of
Serbia brought him into direct contact with the Kingdom of Croatia. Croatia was a well-ordered
State, with a great army at its beck; its king, Tomislav, was a figure of international importance.
He had no quarrel with Symeon; his relations with Constantinople were cold, while he was
closely in touch with Symeon’s new friend, the Pope. There
1. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, op. cit., pp. 157—8. The generals in command of the second
expedition were called Cnenus, Hemnecus, and Etzboclia. No dates are given, but 925-6 seems
correct.
176
might be a few Serbian refugees in Croatia, but they were not dangerous; the mountains made a
satisfactory boundary-line. But Symeon, it seems, was jealous; he hated a neighbour to be
powerful. His imagination had always been too grandiose, and now it verged on wanton
megalomania. Determined to crush this rival, he ordered his general, Alogobatur, in the autumn
of 926 to lead the Bulgarian armies into Croatia. Alogobatur crossed the mountains, but his war-
worn troops were no match for the great Croatian levies. Their defeat was overwhelming; the
general was slain with most of the army. A few fugitives survived to flee back and tell their fate
to Symeon. [1]
The disaster came as a dreadful shock to Symeon. His health was failing, and his nerve began to
go. With unaccustomed prudence he sought to make peace. The legate Madalbert was passing
through Croatia on his return from Preslav, and he lent his services and goodwill. A peace was
arranged, apparently on the lines of a status quo. [2] But Symeon never properly recovered.
Men believed at the time that everyone had an inanimate double [3]: that there was some object,
a piece of statuary or a column, that was mysteriously bound up
1. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, op. cit., p. 158: Georgius Monachus, p. 904. Theophanes

Continuatus, written later, connects the war with Symeon’s death (see below, p. 177). The
Croatian war apparently happened close after the conquest of Serbia, probably in the same year,
as Madalbert was able to make peace certainly before the second Synod of Spalato (927), and
apparently before Symeon’s death (May 927). It is pointless to explain the war as the result of a
Greco-Croatian alliance as Drinov (Yuzhnie Slavyane i Vizantiya, p. 53), and Zlatarski (Istoriya,
i. 2, p. 500) and others do. Constantinople had no relations with Croatia during these years;
otherwise Constantine Porphyrogennetus would certainly have mentioned Tomislav. (I disregard
the modern Croatian historians that say that Constantine knew all about him, but were mistaken
about his name, as in that case Constantine must also have known the future a year or so ahead.
(See my Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, pp. 208 ff.)) Symeon’s megalomania provides a quite
satisfactory reason. It is a well-known phenomenon for autocrats, particularly among races
newly raised from barbarism, to be intoxicated by their power and so to reach a stage of semi-
madness. For the name Alogobatur, see below p. 285.
2. Šišič. Priručnik, p. 222. Farlati, loc. cit.

3. The Greek word employed for this double was ‘ στοιχεῖον.’
177
with each human life, so that any harm that befell it was reproduced in its living correspondent.
In May 927 an astrologer told the Emperor Romanus that Symeon’s double was a certain column
in the Forum. On May 27 Romanus, with his patriotic, experimental mind, had the column
decapitated. At that very hour the old Tsar’s heart gave out and he died. [1]
It was as though the light had gone out, and Bulgaria was left fumbling in the dark. Symeon had
foreseen that chaos might follow, and had tried to make arrangements that would last. He left
four sons, the issue of two marriages. His eldest son, the first wife’s child, Michael, he
considered unsuitable to succeed him; possibly Michael’s mother had been of inferior birth, or
possibly Michael himself resembled his uncle Vladimir. At any rate, he was compelled to retire
into a monastery. Symeon’s successor was to be Peter, the eldest of the second family, a child
still; his maternal uncle, George Sursubul, was to act as regent for him and as guardian of his
younger brothers, John and Benjamin. Symeon’s testamentary wishes passed unchallenged; Peter
mounted the throne, and George Sursubul took over the government. [2]
The Regent’s position was by no means enviable. So long as he lived, Symeon’s personality and
prestige awed all his enemies abroad and silenced all opposition at home. But now everyone
knew that the terrible Tsar could harm them no more; he was dead, and his Empire a corpse for
1. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 412, which says that Symeon led his army to its defeat in Croatia
in person, and just escaped with his life, and died soon after his return. Unfortunately none of the
older chroniclers, e.g. Georgius Monachus, p. 904, nor the Logothete (Slavonic version), p. 136,
mention the story of the ‘ στοιχεῖον, ’ which must therefore be dismissed as a later invention.
2. Theophanes Continuatus, loc. cit. All the chroniclers tell us that John and Benjamin ‘ already
wore the Bulgar robe. ’ The meaning of the phrase is very obscure. Possibly ‘Bulgar’ is used in
contrast to the ‘Roman’ or Imperial robe worn by the Tsar, and the two princes wore it as a
gesture against Peter’s policy.
178
vultures to feed upon. The neighbouring nations—Croats, Magyars, and Petchenegs—gathered

on the frontiers and threatened invasion; even the Emperor Romanus was said to be preparing an
expedition. George collected troops and sent them to make a demonstration in Thrace; but after
fourteen years of unbroken warfare, marching to and fro over the wild Balkan mountains, and
after the disaster in Croatia so few months before, the Bulgarian army, though it committed
several atrocities, [1] was no longer really imposing. The Emperor Romanus continued his
preparations. George saw that he must sue for peace.
There was apparently still a war-party in Bulgaria. Probably the remnant of the old Bulgar
nobility was chiefly occupied in holding military posts, and feared for its existence in times of
peace. At any rate, the Regent moved cautiously, and sent his first envoy, an Armenian monk, in
the utmost secrecy to Constantinople, to suggest a treaty and a marriage-alliance. The Emperor
agreed, and a peace conference was summoned to sit at Mesembria. The Imperial embassy sailed
there by sea, and met the representatives that George, acting openly now, had sent. A truce was
declared and terms roughly arranged; then the conference decided to adjourn to Constantinople,
where the treaty should be ratified by the Emperor and the Regent in person. The Imperial
ambassadors returned by land, through Bulgaria, accompanied by Stephen the Bulgar, a relative
of the Tsar; George Sursubul, accompanied by the late Tsar’s brother-in-law, Symeon, the
Calutarkan and Sampses, and many of his nobility, followed shortly afterwards. At
Constantinople George was permitted to see Maria Lecapena, Romanus’s eldest granddaughter,
the daughter of the co-Emperor
1. Vita S. Mariae Novae, p. 300, which mentions the raid as being particularly barbarous.
179
Christopher. Well satisfied with her appearance, George summoned the young Tsar. Peter set out
at once, and on approaching the city was met with honour by the Patrician Nicetas, Maria’s
maternal grandfather. He was allowed in to the Blachernae quarter, where Romanus interviewed
him and greeted him with a kiss.
The royal marriage took place on October 8, 927, in the Church of the Mother of God at Pegae—
the new church that replaced the victim of Symeon’s wanton barbarism three years before. The
Patriarch Stephen conducted the service; the witness on the bridegroom’s side was his uncle the
Regent, on the bride’s the Protovestiarius Theophanes, chief Minister of the Empire. At the same
time Maria was rechristened Irene, as a symbol of the peace. After the ceremony the bride
returned with Theophanes to Constantinople; the Tsar, on the other hand, was not allowed to
come within the walls. But three days later there was a reunion; Romanus held a sumptuous
wedding feast at Pegae, at which Maria rejoined her husband. When the feast was over, she said
good-bye to her relatives; her parents and Theophanes accompanied her as far as Hebdomum,
and there they left her to her husband’s sole care. The parting was very sorrowful; her parents
grieved to see her go, and she wept to leave them for a strange country. But she dried her tears,
remembering that her husband was an emperor and she the Tsaritsa of the Bulgarians. With her
she took huge consignments of goods, luxuries and furniture, that she might not miss the
comforts of her home. [1]
The marriage was a triumph to Bulgarian prestige. It was the first time for half a millennium that
an Emperor’s daughter had married out of the Empire; Bulgaria was shown to be no longer now
a barbarous State with whose
1. Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 412-5: Georgius Monachus, pp. 904-6: Logothete (Slavonic
version), pp. 136—7.
180
people it was unseemly to be connected. Old-fashioned politicians in Constantinople regretted it

as a degradation of the blood Imperial; but now that the Emperor had consented there was no
more to be said. [1] The peace treaty, signed contemporaneously with the marriage, also
increased Bulgarian self-importance and pride. Its final provisions, the work in the main of the
Protovestiarius Theophanes, [2] fell under three headings—territorial, financial and titular.
The territorial settlement seems to have involved little change. Possibly the Bulgarians acquired
a few towns in Macedonia, but the Empire recovered Sozopolis and Agathopolis and, apparently,
the whole coastline to a river called the Ditzina, beyond Mesembria: though perhaps Develtus,
right at the head of the Gulf of Burgas, remained in the Tsar’s possession. [3]
About the financial settlement it is even harder to discover the truth. The Emperor apparently
undertook to send some sort of yearly income to the Bulgarian Court—possibly the gift of 100
scaramangia promised to Symeon. This was apparently paid till the days of the Emperor
Nicephorus Phocas, whose arbitrary refusal to do so gave rise to a war. But during that war the
Bulgarians were
1. Constantine Porphyrogennetus (De Administrando Imperio, pp. 87-8) deplores the marriage,
and says that it was due to Romanus’s lack of education that he permitted it; it must not be
repeated. Actually, however, it created a precedent; Constantine’s two granddaughters were
married similarly—one to Otto II of the West, the other to Vladimir of Russia.
3. Constantine Porphyrogennetus (op. cit., p. 79): talking of the Russians sailing along the Black
Sea coast to Constantinople, says that from the Danube they ‘ καταλαμβάνουσιν εἰς τὸν
Κωνοπάν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Κωνοπᾶ εἰς Κωνσταντίαν (Costanza), εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν Βάρνας (Varna),
καὶ απὸ Βάρνας ἔρχονται εἰς τὸν ποταμόν τὴν Διτζίναν, ἅπερ πάντα εἰσὶ γῆς τῆς Βουλγαρίας.
Ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Διτζίνας εἰς τὰ τῆς Μεσημβρίας μέρη καταλαμβάνουσιν . . .’ Clearly this implies that
the whole coastline from the Ditzina, north of Mesembria, was Imperial except possibly for
Develtus, which would lie out of the Russians’ route. Zlatarski (op. cit., p. 525) says that the
frontier remained the same as in 896 and 904, save that the Empire gave up Agathopolis,
Sozopolis, and Develtus. He gives no references, nor can I find any reason for such a statement.
181
not the aggressors; the Emperor attacked Bulgaria by means of his Russian allies. [1] Another
account of that time, mentioning no specific war, says that Peter, after his wife’s death, sent
humbly to renew the peace with Constantinople. [2] It is, therefore, probable that the gifts or
tribute was only to be paid during the lifetime of the Tsaritsa—that it was a yearly income paid
to the Imperial princess to help her to keep herself in the dignity that befitted her birth; and Peter
was to put himself in the wrong by demanding the payment to be continued after her death. In
connection with the financial settlement the Emperor received back a large number of prisoners.
Whether they were ransomed at a price we do not know; Constantine Porphyrogennetus implies
that they were released by the Tsar as a gift to Romanus in return for his granddaughter’s hand.
[3]
The arrangement of the question of titles was settled very satisfactorily for the Bulgars. The
Imperial Court agreed to recognize Peter as an Emperor, and the head of the Bulgarian Church as
an autonomous Patriarch. But it insisted on certain modifications. The patriarchal see must not
be situated at Preslav, but at some other ecclesiastical metropolis. The Bulgarian patriarchate
thus was to be dissociated from the Bulgarian Imperial Court, and so, it was hoped at
Constantinople, would lose some of its national character and would, anyhow, escape a little
from the lay control of the Tsar. It would even be possible to say that there were two patriarchal
sees in the Balkan peninsula, not because Bulgaria insisted on spiritual independence, but
because the increased number of civilized Christians necessitated such an arrangement. Thus
Leontius of Preslav was degraded from
1. Leo Diaconus, pp. 61, 80.
2. Cedrenus, ii., p. 346. I return to this question below, p. 199.
3. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, op. cit., p. 88.
182
his home-made patriarchate, and Damian of Dristra instead was elevated as a Patriarch, whose
dignity and autonomy were recognized throughout the Eastern Christian world. [1]
A somewhat similar excuse could be given at Constantinople for Peter’s Imperial title. The
Emperor Romanus Lecapenus was generous in his bestowal of the Imperial dignity. His son-in-
law was an Emperor before him, but he elevated no fewer than three of his own sons, and
contemplated elevating a grandson. There was no reason, therefore, why he should not elevate
his grandson-in-law: and the fact that the grandson-in-law already was an important independent
monarch could be treated as irrelevant. Romanus also considered himself justified in withholding
the title should Peter misbehave; indeed, it is possible that later for a time he did so. [2] The
Bulgarians, however, did not see it in that light. They only knew that he was the first and only
foreign potentate to be recognized as Emperor at New Rome; and, even if he had confirmed the
title by marrying an Emperor’s daughter, there was nothing derogatory in that.
A third concession was that Bulgarian ambassadors at Constantinople should have precedence
over all other ambassadors for ever more. This was a natural corollary of the Imperial title; it
much gratified the Bulgarians
1. This, as Zlatarski (Bolgarski Arkhiepiskopi-Patriarsi, passim) suggests, is the only explanation

of the List of Archbishops of Bulgaria, in which Damian of Dristra is named as first autonomous
Patriarch, so recognized by Romanus Lecapenus, and as living till the time of John Tzimisces’s
conquest, and the Sinodik na Tsar Borisa, in which Leontius, Demetrius, Sergius and Gregory, as
Patriarchs of Preslav. It is unlikely that Damian could hold the office for forty-five years.
Probably on his death, at some earlier date, the Tsar restored the patriarchate to Preslav, but
Constantinople never recognized the Patriarchs of Preslav.
2. That Romanus recognized the title now is proved by the words, almost identical in all the
chroniclers, that Maria rejoiced on reflecting that she was going to marry a ‘Βασίλεύς.’ I deal
with the more complicated question raised by the De Ceremoniis, as to whether the title was
taken away, in Appendix XI.
183
and it cost the Empire nothing: though later it was to offend touchy envoys from the Franks. [1]
Such were the fruits of Symeon’s long war. Bulgaria had gained little land and little material
wealth, but she owed now spiritual allegiance to no foreign pontiff, and her ruler was an
Emperor, the acknowledged equal of the anointed autocrats of Rome, ranking far above all other
princes, even the Frankish monarchs, the soi-disant Emperors in the West. And that was all the
fruit; was it worth while? An Imperial mantle is a cumbrous thing to wear for shoulders that are
wasted.
For it had been won at a heavy cost. For fourteen years the war had lasted; for fourteen years
Bulgarian soldiers had tramped from battlefield to battlefield, and at last to their death-trap in
Croatia. What was left of Symeon’s armies was now almost ridiculous. [2] The war must also
have stupefied Bulgarian commerce; for many seasons the merchants trading in the Black Sea
ports or conveying their caravans from the Danube to Thessalonica must have been delayed and
thwarted and driven out of business. The Empire, with its widely flung interests, could afford
such losses; but Bulgaria needed all its trade. [3] And, now that peace had come, the whole land
was weary and discontented. Symeon by the force of his personality had stamped his will on his
subjects; for all his wantonness, not one of them had lifted a finger against him. But he was dead,
his heir a child, the Regent only a regent, not even of royal blood; and it was apparent to
everyone how profitless the war had been. Tsar Peter had a hard task before him. His father had
bought him his honour at a very heavy price.
1. Liudprand, Legatio, p. 186.
2. George Sursubul’s demonstration in Thrace in 927 had been quite in effective, and the Bulgars
made no attempt to oppose the Serbian revolt in 931.
4. e.g. Symeon’s care for the trade early in his reign—going to war in its interests.
CHAPTER II
Men of god and men of blood
For the rare length of forty years there was peace in the Balkan peninsula. But it was not a peace
teeming with happy, tranquil prosperity; it was the peace of exhaustion. Bulgaria did not fight
because she could not; while the Government at Constantinople was engaged in grandiose
schemes far in the east. And so the years were punctuated by raids and risings that no one
attempted to oppose. The foreign history of Bulgaria in Peter’s reign is a melancholy story.
But it might have been worse. Save on the side of the Empire, the frontiers were strong,
mountains guarding the country from the Slav nations farther west and the Danube guarding it
from the Magyars and the Petchenegs. The cardinal principle of Peter’s foreign policy was to
keep on good terms with both the Empire and the Petchenegs. Everyone knew that the
Petchenegs’ allies were inviolable, for everyone was in terror of the Petchenegs; even the
Magyars quailed before them. But a breach with the Empire might too easily mean a breach with
the Petchenegs. When it came to bribery the Empire could always outbid Bulgaria, and Bulgaria
lay temptingly close to the Petchenegs’ homes. Even in Symeon’s day it had only been the
incompetence and the venality of the Imperial officials that had saved Bulgaria; now the danger
was far greater. Thus it was a deliberate policy as well as the influence of a Greek Tsaritsa that
made the Bulgarians submit uncomplaining to their high-handed treatment by the Emperor. [1]
1. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Administrando Imperio, p. 71, tells how determined the

Bulgarians were to keep on good terms with the Petchenegs.
184
185
Romanus indeed behaved often in a very unfriendly manner to his granddaughter’s husband,
whom at times he even, so it seems, refused to call by his Imperial title. In the year 933 Prince
Tzeesthlav of Serbia escaped from his Bulgarian prison and returned to Serbia. His coming
encouraged all the Serbian exiles to emerge from their refuges and to rally round him in re-
establishing their kingdom. The country had lain desolate for seven years, ever since the Bulgar
conquest, and Tzeesthlav had a hard task in restoring it to life. But any chance that Peter might
have had in crushing the revolt was spoiled by the Emperor’s actions. Romanus not only
encouraged Tzeesthlav by gifts of garments and other articles of use or value, but he also
accepted the suzerainty of the new State. Peter had to reconcile himself to the loss of Serbia. [1]
For the rest, the story of foreign affairs is a story of raids into Bulgaria by raiders on the way to
Constantinople. In April 934 the Magyars made a great incursion into the Balkans. Their goal
was Constantinople, but they utilized their passage through Bulgaria. The details of the raid are
hard to decipher, but it seems that they reached Develtus, and the number of their captives, who
must have been chiefly Bulgarian, was so great that a woman could be bought for a silk dress.
[2] In April 943 they came again through Bulgaria, journeying to Thrace. How much this time
the Bulgarians suffered we cannot tell; the Empire at once concluded a truce with them. [3] In
944 Bulgaria underwent a raid by the Petchenegs, set in
1. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, op. cit., pp. 158-9, dated seven years after the Bulgar
conquest.
2. I deal in my Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, pp. 107 ff., with the problem of this raid,
mentioned vaguely by the Hungarians (de Thwrocz, p. 147: Petrus Ranzanus, Index IV., p. 581),
specifically by Theophanes Continuatus, p. 422, and other Greek chroniclers (dated April 934),
and with details that cannot be ignored, though some are impossible (dated 932), by Maçoudi (tr.
Barbier de Meynard, ii., p. 58).
186
motion by the vindictive restlessness of the Russians. The whole incident showed the pathetic
part now played by Bulgaria. The Russians, from their southern centre at Kiev, were now
steadily growing in power; they were a numerous nation, and they commanded the great trade
route from the Baltic to the Black Sea. In 941 they had burst through the Petchenegs to make an
attack by sea on Constantinople, but, though the Emperor passed sleepless nights in his anxiety,
they had been heavily defeated. Their Prince, Igor, burned for vengeance. In 944 he induced the
Petchenegs to accompany him in an enormous raid by land. News of it reached Bulgaria; the
Bulgars were terrified, and sent the news on to Constantinople. The Emperor Romanus, with
customary prudence, at once dispatched an embassy laden with gifts to the Danube, and
successfully persuaded the Russians to negotiate. But the Petchenegs refused to be cheated of a
raid; so they crossed the river and paid a fierce and profitable visit to Bulgaria. Everyone was
satisfied, except the Bulgarians, who did not count. [1] After that humiliating experience there
was a respite for several years; but in 958 the Magyars returned, and again in 962, [2] till finally,
in 965, Peter, remembering the ways of his forefathers, sought an alliance with Otto, the great
King of Germany, as a means for keeping them in check. [3]
How heavily these raids fell upon Bulgaria, we cannot say. We only know of them because they
penetrated into the Empire and the ken of the Greek chroniclers. There may have been others
directed solely against the Bulgarians.
1. La Chronique dite de Nestor, p. 35.
2. Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 462-3, 480—undated, but their position in the chronicle suggests
these dates, while the first is rendered almost certain, as in 943 a truce was made for five years,
after which Magyar Princes came to Constantinople to make a further truce, which would
naturally be for ten years. Both raids were checked by Imperial forces in Thrace.
3. Ibrahim-ibn-Yakub, quoted in Zlatarski, Izviestieto na Ibrahim-ibn-Yakub za Bulgaritie, pp.

67-75.
187
This pitiable defencelessness was helped by the internal state of the country. Symeon, disastrous
though his policy had been, was great enough and personified fully enough the aspirations of his
people to carry them all with him and to suffer no insubordination. Under Peter the component
parts of Bulgaria fell asunder. Peter’s character was pacific and pious, his health was poor, [1]
and he assumed the government very young—for it seems that, once the peace had been carried
through, George Sursubul retired from the regency;—he had not the personality to awe and
command a nation disillusioned and divided by failure. In the old days the Khan had maintained
his position by playing off the Slav peasantry against the Bulgar nobility. Peter did not even
succeed in that. Under his rule the Court party became a separate faction, distrusted by the rest of
the country. Besides the Government at Preslav, it probably included the merchants, all naturally
in favour of peace, and the official hierarchy, and no doubt took its tone from the Tsaritsa Maria-
Irene, who, if she inherited at all the traits of her family, must have easily dominated her gentle
husband. We know that she kept in close touch with Constantinople, at first often journeying
there: though, after her father Christopher’s death, in August 931, she only went there once
again, with three of her children. [2]
The Bulgar nobility, so often crushed by the Khans, was not yet extinct; though probably it had
by now lost its racial distinction, and was Slavonic-speaking and reinforced by the more
powerful of the Slavs. Politically it appeared now as the war party. Its dissatisfaction with the
Court was shown early in Peter’s reign, in 929, when he discovered a conspiracy engineered
against him to put
1. According to Leo Diaconus, he died of an epileptic fit (Leo Diaconus, p. 78).
2. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 422. A proof of the Tsaritsa’s influence is that it was after her
death that Peter fell under the sway of the war party.
188
his brother John on the throne. The conspiracy was put down, and the nobles involved were
severely punished. John himself was imprisoned and made to take monastic vows. Peter then
sent to Constantinople to announce his happy escape. But the Emperor Romanus determined to
profit by the incident; his ambassador came to Preslav and somehow, no doubt at a heavy price,
secured the person of the rebel Prince. John was given a palace at Constantinople, and very soon
the Emperor had him released from his vows and married him to an Armeniac bride. The
Imperial diplomats liked to have foreign pretenders in their power; Romanus could hold John as
a threat over Peter’s head. [1] After this failure the war party kept quiet, till, at the close of the
reign, it took control of the Government.
The humbler classes were restless too. Occasionally they showed their sentiments in open
lawlessness, as was shown by the career of another of the Princes. Michael, Symeon’s eldest son,
chafed under the monastic restraint that his father had put upon him; and about the year 930 he
escaped and made off to the mountains in the west of Bulgaria, where he was joined by large
numbers of Slav malcontents. He lived there successfully as a brigand king; and after his death
his band still held together, displaying power and prowess enough to make sudden descents into
the Empire and sack the city of Nicopolis. [2] And similar brigand companies probably existed
all over the western provinces. [3] But the discontent of the main body of the populace took a
very different and far more significant form.
1. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 419. The incident is placed after the great frost of 928-9.
2. Ibid., p. 420.
3. In 926, before peace was signed, the Italian ambassador, travelling to Constantinople, fell in
with Slav brigands on the frontier by Thessalonica (Liudprand, Antapodosis, p. 83). The peace
probably hardly affected conditions there.
189
Those that are disappointed and weary and fearful for the future often take refuge in religion; and
so it was with the Bulgarians. After Symeon’s wars, a wave of religious activity swept over the
whole country. Amongst its pioneers was the Tsar himself, well-known for his piety and for the
zeal with which he sought out saints. Many of his subjects followed his lead. Crowds flocked to
enter the monasteries; others sought even greater holiness by becoming hermits and settling
down to lives of bitter hardness. Foremost among these was a certain herdsman called John,
who, as Saint John of Rila (Ivan Rilski), has attained the eminence of patron saint of Bulgaria.
John of Rila for many years lived in sanctity in a hollow oak; but at last the oak blew down, and
he had to retire to the comfort of a cave high in the mountains of Rila. There he acquired
considerable fame; and the Tsar, when hunting in the neighbourhood, took the trouble to find out
his retreat and to pay him a visit. Peter had been annoyed by a homily that the saint had
addressed to his huntsmen; but, meeting him face to face, he was deeply impressed by his
holiness and eagerly gave him his patronage. When John died in 946 his body was buried in
pomp at Sardica (Sofia); but later it was moved back to the mountains, to the great monastery
that now bears his name. [1]
But this religiosity had another side. In its most perverted form it appeared in the case of the
Tsar’s own brother, Benjamin, the only one to abstain from political intrigue. Benjamin’s life
was given over to a study of the Black Arts; and he became so clever a magician that at will he
could turn himself into a wolf or any other animal you pleased. [2] Many of his fellow Bulgars
took too great
1. Zhivot Jovana Rilskog (ed. Novakovitch), passim, esp. pp. 277 ff. (the account of Peter’s
interview): Ivanov, Sv. Ivan Rilski, pp. 1—20, passim.

190
an interest in fortune-telling and in demon powers, [1] but few could hope to acquire a
proficiency such as his; and so, though in himself he might be actively unpleasant, he never
attracted a large following. Far more influential and deplorable, politically as well as doctrinally,
was a humble pope or village priest called Bogomil.
Pope Bogomil, the greatest heresiarch of all the Middle Ages, is a figure lost in obscurity. We
cannot tell where or when he lived nor who he was. All that we know is that ‘in the reign of the
Orthodox Tsar Peter there was a priest called Bogomil, who was the first to sow heresy in the
Bulgar tongue,’ [2] that, following the custom of his sect of taking a second name, he was also
called Jeremiah, that he was credited with the authorship of several parables and doctrinal
pronouncements, and that his heresy was flourishing before the year 956. [3] Even the doctrines
that he himself taught are somewhat hard to decipher. Of the writings of the Bogomils
themselves—as Pope Bogomil’s followers were called in Eastern Europe—nothing survives
except a few legendary tales of Bible characters or saints and liturgies so simple as hardly to
smack of heresy at all. [4] For the details of their belief and practices we have to resort to the
evidence of their enemies; but even most of these are of a later date—and heresies, like orthodox
religions, may change and elaborate their tenets considerably in a century or two. There are,
however, two exceptions, two documents written against Bogomil himself either in his lifetime
or soon after his death.
1. Kozma inveighs against the prevalent taste for fortune-telling, etc.
2. Slovo Kozmy, p. 4. The Sinodik na Tsar Borisa, p. 32, contains one short similar sentence.
3. i.e. before the death of the Patriarch Theophylact of Constantinople. See Ivanov, Bogomilski
Knigi, pp. 22 ff.
4. See Ivanov, op. cit., where the theologically important writings are given; also Léger,
L’Hérésie des Bogomiles, passim, and La Literature Slave en Bulgarie au Moyen Age: Les
Bogomiles, where some of their more popular legends are given.
191
The Patriarch Theophylact Lecapenus of Constantinople, the Tsaritsa’s uncle, a prelate more
often to be seen in his stables than in his cathedral, was sufficiently shocked by the growth of the
Bogomil heresy to write about it to Tsar Peter—probably about the year 950; in 954 Theophylact
had a severe riding accident, which incapacitated him during his remaining two years of life. [1]
Theophylact was anxious that all the prevalent heresies should be anathematized, and so he did
not distinguish between the Paulician teachings and those of Bogomil; but some of his remarks
were clearly intended for the latter alone. More important is a work of considerable length,
written probably about 975, by a Bulgarian priest called Kozma (Cosmas) purely against the
heretics. [2]
From Theophylact and Kozma, as from all the later evidence, one fundamental doctrine appears.
The Bogomil heresy was what was called at the time Manichaean [3]; though it only shared with
Mani’s faith the basis of Dualism. The Bogomils were frankly Dualist, contrasting God with
Satan, good with evil, light with darkness, spirit with matter, and considering both Forces equal,
though, it seems, in the end God would triumph. [4] Dualism has always been a natural and
attractive religion; but Pope Bogomil was inspired by the Paulicians who were settled in the
borders of Bulgaria. The Paulicians were an Armenian sect who had strained the dualism
inherent in the New Testament to its utmost extent,
1. This letter, the manuscript of which is in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, is printed in the
Izviestiya ot. Russ. Tazyka i Slov., vol. xviii., knig. 3, pp. 356 ff. Of its authenticity there can be
no doubt.
2. Slovo Sv. Kozmy Presbitera na Eretiki (ed. Popruzhenko). Kozma refers to Peter’s reign as
though it were over, but he was acquainted with the clergy of Symeon’s time.
3. Throughout the Middle Ages, in the West as in the East, Manichaean is used simply as
synonymous with Dualist.
4. Theophylact’s letter, p. 364: God’s ultimate triumph is foretold in Secret Book (Taïna Kniga),
Carcassonne MSS, printed in Benoest, Histoire des Albigeois, p. 295, and in Ivanov, op. cit., p.
86.
192
putting great faith in the words of St. John’s Gospel (xii. 31 and xiv. 30) which attributed to the
Devil the rule of this world. They rejected the ordinances of the Orthodox Church or even the
Armenian Monophysite Church, and instead had their own rites and their own ecclesiastical
organization. [1] They had long been a source of annoyance to the Empire, at times even forming
politically independent communities [2]; and one of the methods employed to deal with them
had been to transplant them to Europe, especially to Thrace. But their migration never damped
their ardour; already in the days of Boris their missionaries were working in Bulgaria. [3]
But the Paulicians were a sect of some education, versed in theology. Bogomil’s genius lay in his
adaptation of this intricate Armenian religion to suit the needs of the European peasantry.
Probably he taught Paulicianism as he understood it [4]; but his teaching was nevertheless
something new, and something so suited to its purpose that before two centuries were over it had
spread to the mountains of Spain. Besides the Dualist basis of their creed, it seems that the
Bogomils believed that the Mother of God was not Mary, the daughter of Joachim and Anna, but
the Upper Jerusalem, and that Christ’s life and death were but fantasy—for God could never take
on anything so evil as a material body; they rejected the Old Testament, both the Mosaic law and
the prophets, and they restricted their prayers to the Paternoster; nor would they cross
themselves—for that would be a tactless reminder of
1. The Paulician tenets may be found in Conybeare, The Key of Truth; also in Petrus Siculus’s
diatribe.
2. e.g. their republic at Tephrice, which Basil I had difficulty in capturing in 871. Basil’s own
family had been transported from Armenia to Adrianople, and possibly was itself originally
Paulician.
3. Nicolaus Papa, Responsa, p. 1015.

4. ‘ Μανιχαισμὸς γάρ ἐστι Παυλιανισμῷ συμμιγής ’. Theophylact’s letter, p. 363. The taking of
a second name, e.g. Bogomil’s assumption of the name Jeremiah, was copied from a Paulician
habit.
193
the wood on which God seemingly suffered. With regard to Satan, called Satanail or Samail,
there were two schools of thought: had he always been evil or was he a fallen angel? The former
was the Paulician theory, deriving from Zoroastrianism, and from the Paulician settlements it
seems to have enjoyed a considerable vogue in the Balkans, especially in the Greek districts; the
latter was what Bogomil himself taught. [1] There were some theories that Satan was either the
elder or the younger son of God and brother of Jesus. There was equal divergence in their views
of the origin of Adam and Eve, whose date incidentally was 5500 B.C.: were they fallen angels
transformed into human beings, or created by God or by Satan? It was also said that Eve was
unfaithful; Abel was her son by Adam, but she bore Cain and a daughter, Calomela, to Satan. [2]
Out of these stories arose a cycle of popular legends. Pope Bogomil himself is said to have
pronounced on such subjects as ‘how many particles became Adam’ and ‘how Jesus Christ
became a pope’ or ‘how he laboured with the flesh’; and he may too have been the author of the
story that tells how Saint Sisinni met the twelve daughters of Tsar Herod on the shores of the
Red Sea, and they told him that they were come to bring disease into the world. [3]
Thus far the Bogomil heresy, distressing though it was theologically, need not have troubled the
lay authorities. But a faith that teaches that all matter is evil is bound to
1. The Constantinopolitan Bogomils appear to have been followers of the more Paulician school,
which was probably the so-called Dragovitsan Church after the village of Dragovitsa, near
Philippopolis, in a Paulician district. The same divergence appears to have separated the Cathari
and the Paterenes in the west.
2. Theophylact’s letter, pp. 364 ff.: Slovo Kozmii, passim: Sinodik na Tsar Borisa, pp. 34 ff.:
Euthymius Zigabenus, Contra Bogomilos, passim: Euthymius of Acmonia in Ficker, Die
Phundagiagiten, passim: The Secret Book (in Ivanov, op. cit.). Summaries can be found in
Ivanov, op. cit., pp. 24 ff., and Léger, La Littérature Slave.
3. Quoted in Léger, op. cit.
194
have serious social consequences. Many of the Bogomils’ habits were admirable; in contrast to
the Orthodox Bulgarians, who danced and drank and sang to their gouslas all day and all night
long, they were modest, discreet, silent, and pale with fasting; they never laughed out loud nor
talked of vanities; food and drink came from Satan, they said, so they took both in extreme
moderation, touching neither meat nor wine. But when they shut themselves up in their houses
for four days and nights on end to pray, [1] employers of labour might well look askance.
Moreover, convinced as they were of the evil of their bodies, they firmly discouraged marriage
or other less lawful methods of propagating the race. Indeed, their abstention from women was
so marked that among their later disciples in France, often called the Bougres, from the Bulgar
origin of their doctrine, it aroused the prurient suspicions of the Orthodox; and their name in its
English translation still preserves the meaning of an alternative form of vice. Pope Bogomil was
not hopeful enough to expect the whole of his followers to commit racial suicide; so, following
the practice of the Paulicians, he set aside certain persons known as the Elect, whose abstinence
from sexual intercourse was complete, and from bodily nourishment and comforts as nearly
complete as possible; they were the aristocracy among the Bogomils, and their spiritually feebler
brethren ministered to them. [2] Their democratic instincts made them averse to authority. In
their early days they even had no clergy—Bogomil and his chief disciples, Michael and
Theodore, Dobr, Stephen, Basil, and Peter, had no official position—but later they seem to have
recognized the orders of deacon, priest, and bishop [3]; and by the thirteenth century there
1. Slovo Kozmy, pp. 36 ff.
2. Ivanov and Léger, loc. cit.: Ivanov, p. 123 n.
3. Ivanov, op. cit., pp. 29-30. The names of the heresiarchs are given in the Sinodik na Tsar
Borisa, loc. cit.
195
existed in Bulgaria a spiritual potentate known throughout Christendom as the Black Pope
himself. [1] But what made the Bogomils an inevitable menace to the State and necessitated their
persecution was their view, based on their dislike of things that were temporal, that it displeased
God if a servant worked for his master or a subject worked for his prince. [2]
The method and extent of the persecution employed by the Government to combat so dangerous
a heresy are unknown to us, as are most of the details of Bulgarian history during these years.
The Patriarch Theophylact had recommended the employment of secular authority in crushing
them, and his advice was no doubt followed. But Bogomilstvo was a faith for which its adherents
would gladly suffer martyrdom; and it increased in strength. Its success was greatly helped by
the political and social atmosphere of the country. It was the expression of discontent by the
poorer classes, the Slavs, members of a race that has always had a democratic bias. The people
had long been opposed to the aristocracy, which still was for the most part alien by birth, if no
longer in speech; they had lost touch with their old ally the Khan, who now as Caesar was
bravely imitating the autocracy and luxury of New Rome. The orthodox Bulgarian clergy were
proving unsatisfactory; they were probably under the control of the Court, whose interests they
pursued, and, unlike the Greeks, whose culture and learning had at first dazzled the Bulgarians,
the average priests were lazy and debauched and little better educated than their congregations—
the Bogomils called them blind Pharisees—while the higher clergy were out of touch with the
1. He is mentioned in a letter of the Legate Conrad written in 1223, (Gervasii Praemonstratensis,

ep. 120, p. 116). But his actual existence is uncertain—it was generally misunderstood in the
West that every Eastern village priest was called a pope.
2. Slovo Kozmy, pp. 40—1.
196
people. The Bogomil Elect provided a remarkable and impressive contrast, just as the ordinary
Bogomils—so Kozma had to admit—compared very favourably in their manners with the
orthodox laity. It was scarcely surprising that the best of the crushed and disillusioned peasantry
should feel the world to be an evil place and all its matter the work of Satanail, and should
follow Pope Bogomil, who was of their number and understood their souls. Nor could so well
suited a faith long remain confined by the frontiers of Bulgaria; it spread southward to
Constantinople itself and the provinces of the Empire, it spread eastward to Serbia and to Bosnia
and Croatia, and across to Lombardy and the Alps, finding its second great home in the land of
Languedoc, between the Cevennes and the Pyrenees: till at last that poor land was cleansed and
purified by the blood-baths of de Montfort and the fires of Saint Dominic. [1]
But the history of the Bogomils in France and Italy in centuries to come, or of their baneful
influence on the Balkan lands that was to last till the Ottoman conquest, is outside of our limits
here. In Peter’s time and in the years that followed close after, they had not yet reached their full
notoriety; but, though they worked invisibly and humbly, their work was that of a worm gnawing
at the heart of Bulgaria. The decline and fall of her first Empire came very largely from the
unceasing labours and increasing strength of the followers of Pope Bogomil.
For the rest, life in Bulgaria under Peter seems to have passed without much incident. Trade
probably returned
1. The descent of the Albigeois heretics from the Bogomils is sometimes denied; e.g. H. Lea, in
his History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages (i., p. 90), dismisses the Bogomils in a footnote
as a side-track. However, mediaeval writers (e.g. Reinerius Sacchoni and Moneta) trace the
Albigeois from them, and certainly the Languedoc heretics looked to Bulgaria as the source of
their faith. Some historians like to consider any traditional opinion as being therefore wrong; but
any doubt on this question must vanish before a comparison of the Slavonic Bogomil literature
with the Latin-Languedoc literature of the Cathars and Paterenes, as is given in Ivanov, op. cit.
197
with peace and flourished, and the mines were no doubt worked. That churches and palaces and
monasteries were built throughout the country is certain: though we can assign no extant
building confidently to these years. Of the arts in detail we know nothing; nothing has survived.
Literature was extremely fashionable; the priest Kozma complained bitterly that everyone wrote
books instead of reading them. These books were mostly translations of Greek religious works or
romances; but Kozma’s own writing shows the advance in Slavonic literature that had been
made in the last half-century. Not only was it the first original work of any length written in the
Bulgarian vernacular, but it has a maturity of form and flexibility of language far in advance of
the writing of Symeon’s day, of Khrabr or John the Exarch. [1] Moreover, the Bogomils
introduced a popular literature, telling legends that sooner or later were written down. These too
were mostly translations or adaptations from the Greek, some even showing traces of Indian
mythology, but others were original compositions. But, in spite of this activity, the general
standard of culture and comfort was low. Even at the Court it did not probably extend far beyond
the furniture and trappings that the Greek Tsaritsa would bring with her on her journeys from her
home. When, after her death, her daughters visited Constantinople, they travelled not in the
litters that would convey any lady of quality in the Empire, but in chariots whose wheels were
armed with sharp scythes. The Bulgarian ambassador at Constantinople in 968 was even less
civilized; he shaved his head like a Hungarian and wore a brass belt, apparently to keep his
trousers up, and was quite unwashed. Bishop Liudprand of Cremona, ambassador of Otto I, was
furious at such a creature having precedence
1. Kozma probably wrote after Peter’s death (see above, p. 191), but I treat of him here, as he
considered himself a disciple of the Preslav school of Symeon’s day.
198
over him—and yet the North Italians themselves were none too clean in the tenth century. [1]
But probably this ambassador was a member of the war-party—a boyar who would despise the
decadent cleanlier habits of the Court.
Thus for close on four decades Bulgaria lay in this weary parody of peace. At last, in 965, the
Tsaritsa Maria-Irene, eponymous leader of the peace party, died. Years had brought Peter no
greater strength of character, and almost at once, deprived of his wife’s pacific influence, he fell
under the control of warlike bоyars , who counselled him to show a brave, aggressive front
against Constantinople. Things had changed in Constantinople. The Emperor Romanus
Lecapenus, Symeon’s adversary, had fallen long since, and had died a repentant monk;
Constantine, the Porphyrogennetus, restored to his rightful place, was dead now too; even his
son, the second Romanus, grandson of old Lecapenus, had died. The Imperial crown was now
worn officially by two little boys, the sons of Romanus II—the younger an indolent child called
Constantine, the elder called Basil, who would later bear a surname dreadful to Bulgarian ears.
Their mother, the lovely Empress Theophano, warned by the fate of Zoe Carbopsina, had
maintained herself in power by a second marriage; her husband had been the Imperial
Commander-in-Chief, Nicephorus Phocas, grandson of the first Nicephorus Phocas and nephew
of the victim of the Achelous. Nicephorus, from his prowess and from this marriage, was now
firmly seated with his stepsons on the Imperial throne, co-Emperor and Regent of the Empire.
It would have been wise not to provoke the warrior-Emperor who had conquered Crete from the
Infidel and
1. Liudprand, Legatio, pp. 185-6. Ibrahim ibn Yakub describes the Bulgarian ambassador at Otto
I’l Court in 965 as wearing a similar costume. See above, p. 186.
199
was conquering in the east. But the Bulgarians hoped that Nicephorus would be too fully
occupied in his schemes against the Saracens not to yield to the demands of Bulgaria, should she
show a warlike spirit. And so, when Nicephorus revisited Constantinople for the winter of 965-6,
fresh from his capture of Tarsus, he was accosted by an embassy from the Tsar, sent to receive
the ‘customary tribute.’ [1]
This tribute was the old income that the Empire had agreed to pay, by the peace of 927, during
the lifetime of the Tsaritsa. Peter’s demand for it after her death was an act of unwarrantable
aggression; and to call what was practically a dowry paid in instalments tribute was an
intolerable insult. The ambassadors’ reception was short and painful. Nicephorus was furious;
rhetorically he asked his father, the Caesar Bardas, what could they mean by demanding tribute
from the Roman Emperor. He then turned on the ambassadors and poured abuse on them, calling
their race one of filthy beggars, and their Tsar, not an emperor, but a prince clad in skins. [2] His
refusal was categorical; the unhappy Bulgarians, amid blows from the humbler courtiers, were
dismissed from the Presence.
It was an audience almost unparalleled in the history of Imperial etiquette, similar only to
Alexander’s reception of Symeon’s envoys in 913. But Peter was not Symeon; nor was
Nicephorus Alexander. His rage was real, not the product of drunken bravado, and he did not
confine himself to words. At once he moved with a large army to the frontier, and even captured
a few of the Bulgarian forts that still guarded the Great Fence; but he had no wish to go
campaigning in Bulgaria, that difficult country
1. I give my reasons for my disentanglement of Nicephorus’s wars with Bulgaria in Appendix

XII.
2. Leo Diaconus, p. 62.
200
where so many Imperial lords and soldiers had been slain—he still had work to do in the east. He
thought of an easier way to deal with Bulgaria, a method dictated by the traditions of Byzantine
diplomacy. The Russians were a vigorous race and lay beyond Bulgaria. They could do his work
for him. But for the moment there was no work to be done. Peter was terrified by the result of his
bellicose gesture. Hastily he sent to make peace, withdrawing, we may presume, his demand for
‘tribute,’ and handing over his two sons, Boris and Romanus, as hostages to the Emperor—an act
that was not as humiliating as it might seem; the young men were simply going, as Symeon had
gone, to finish their schooling at Constantinople, the one place where they would receive an
education worthy of civilized princes. That they were there in the Emperor’s power could be
regarded as a side-issue.
The episode gave Nicephorus food for reflection. For close on forty years the Empire had
ignored Bulgaria; but Bulgaria had not lost her warlike temper. It was only weariness that kept
her tranquil; if she were allowed time to recover, the age of Symeon might come back again.
Nicephorus proceeded with his negotiations with the Russians. [1]
The Imperial ambassador sent to the Russian Court was the Patrician Calocyras, son of the chief
magistrate of Cherson, the Imperial colony in the Crimea, the starting point of most of the
missions into the Steppes. Calocyras, who had lived most of his life in his native district, was
admirably fitted to deal with the savage neighbouring tribes, knowing their languages and their
habits well. Moreover, he took with him a sum of money enormous
1. Zlatarski’s suggestion that Nicephorus called the Russians into Bulgaria to keep them from
attacking Cherson is, I think, unnecessary. Cherson could be defended easily still by calling in
the Petchenegs.
201
even in those days of the wholesale bribery of nations— 1,500 lb. of gold. The Russian monarch,
the heathen Varangian Prince Svyatoslav, fell an easy prey to the ambassador’s bribes and
blandishments. He was a young man, only recently released from the tutelage of his stern
Christian mother, the Grand Princess Olga; already he had waged wars successfully against his
neighbours on the Steppes, and he was ambitious and eager to show his prowess further afield.
By the summer of 967 the Russians were ready to descend upon Bulgaria.
In June 967 the Emperor Nicephorus marched to the frontier to inspect its defences—a useful
precaution when war was to be let loose beyond it. At the same time, he wished to salve his
conscience for calling in heathen barbarians against a Christian country with which he was at
peace. So from the frontier he wrote to the Tsar accusing him of having so often allowed the
Magyars to cross the Danube and penetrate to the Empire. Peter had no answer. He would gladly
have prevented the Magyars from raiding in his country, but he had not been strong enough; but
naturally, when they did invade, he encouraged them to pass on as quickly as possible into the
provinces of some other ruler. His reply was inevitably unsatisfactory; and so Nicephorus could
consider himself justified. [1] Confident that the Russians would do his work thoroughly, he
turned his attention again to the east.
In August Svyatoslav crossed the Danube with Calocyras to guide him and sixteen thousand
men. The Bulgarians had been warned, and sent twice that number to oppose his landing on the
southern bank; but they were badly defeated and fled to the fortress of Dristra. Svyatoslav
1. Zonaras, iii., p. 512-13, says that Nicephorus was actuated by a Magyar invasion. Cedrenus
(Scylitzes), however (ii., p. 372), on whom Zonaras based his chronicle, implies that it was a
general pretext. The invasion in Zonaras is clearly due to his misinterpretation of the passage in
Scylitzes.
202
overran the north of the country, capturing twenty-four towns, and established himself for the
winter in that very district of Onglus where Asperuch the Bulgar had lived, holding his Court in
Preslav-on-the-Danube, Little Preslav, the fortress that commanded the river delta. Thither the
Emperor sent him additional subsidies [1]; and next spring he invaded southward again,
devastating the land even more fiercely than before.
The Bulgarians were in despair. The Tsar Peter’s health was affected by the disasters; he had an
apoplectic fit from which he never properly recovered. His Government, however, kept its head
sufficiently to apply the only possible remedy; it called in the Petchenegs. The Petchenegs were
only too glad to intervene; the Russian power was rivalling their own, and already their prestige
was diminishing compared to the better ordered hordes of the Varangians. Moreover, Svyatoslav
had violated their territory in marching to the Danube; for they still roamed over the Wallachian
plain and the Steppes on the Black Sea coast. They banded themselves together in the summer of
968 and marched in full force against Kiev. The Grand Princess Olga defended the city as best
she could, but her forces were outnumbered and famine intervened. The news at last reached
Svyatoslav, and reluctantly he saw that he must return. He arrived back in time to save his
capital: while his people reproached him for adventuring in foreign lands and neglecting his own.
But, though Bulgaria thus won a respite, his heart was set on going there again.
The ailing Tsar took a second precaution. That same summer he swallowed his pride and humbly
sent an ambassador to Constantinople—the unwashed Patrician whose precedence so vexed
Liudprand of Cremona.
1. This is clearly what is meant by ‘Nestor’s’ assertion that the ‘Greeks paid him tribute there.’
203
Nicephorus received him non-committally; he was as yet undecided in his policy. But as the year
wore on alarming news came from Russia. The Patrician Calocyras had succeeded only too well
in winning Svyatoslav’s confidence; he now was planning to use it against his Emperor.
Continually he urged the Russians to invade the Balkans again, hoping either to be carried on
Russian arms to the Imperial throne itself, or more probably so to divert the Emperor that he
could return to his native Cherson and establish himself there independently. Svyatoslav fell
eagerly in with his plans. The south tempted him; he wished to hold his Court for ever at Preslav-
on-the-Danube; for there, he said, was the centre of his lands; there all the riches came, from
Greece, silver, stuffs and fruits, and varied wines, from Bohemia and from Hungary, silver and
horses, from Russia, skins and wax and honey and human slaves. [1] It was indeed a fine site for
a capital, so near the mouth of the great river and commanding the gate to the rich Balkan world.
It was all that his mother Olga could do to restrain him, to keep him with her at Kiev till she
died; for already she was very ill. [2]
Nicephorus learnt from his spies that the situation was really serious; he himself thought that war
with Russia was unavoidable. He hastily sent to fortify the Imperial possessions in the Crimea,
[3] and at the same time instructed the Patrician Nicephorus Eroticus, and Philotheus, Bishop of
Euchaita, to proceed to the Bulgarian Court and propose an alliance. The Bulgarians received
them delightedly; the need for Imperial help, they said, was very urgent indeed. Everything was
arranged for a common defence of the peninsula. At Nicephorus’s suggestion the
1. Chronique dite de Nestor, pp. 53-4.
2. Ibid., loc. cit.
3. It is this fact that makes me believe that Cherson was at first Calocyras’s objective.
204
alliance was to be further cemented by a marriage between two little Bulgar Princesses [1] and
the two young purple-born Emperors. This clause was enthusiastically accepted; and the two
princesses set out in scythe-wheeled chariots to Constantinople, to be trained in their future high
duties. But these marriages never took place; and we only hear of them once again. Early on the
December night on which the Empress Theophano had her husband Nicephorus murdered, she
came to talk to him about the upbringing of these foreign girls, and left him to make some
arrangement for them. [2] After that nothing is known of them. They soon lost their political
importance; probably they were given as brides each to some respectable gentleman of
Constantinople. [3]
In the midst of these arrangements the Tsar Peter died, on January 30, 969. [4] He had reigned
nearly forty-two years, a good man, but a bad king. His task had been almost impossible; he had
inherited a weary kingdom, and he had not been strong enough to hold it together. If he kept the
peace he aroused the irritation of his bоyars ; but his show of warlike temper at the end was even
more disastrous. And all the while he had to face the passive but increasing hostility of the
peasant heretics. His had not been a happy life; even in his youth he was a disillusioned man,
murmuring to Saint John of Rila that, however great your longing for riches and for glory may
be, they will not
1. It is uncertain who these Princesses were. They can hardly have been the children of Peter and
Maria, as is generally said, for they were married forty-one years previously, whereas the
Princesses were clearly quite young. They were probably the children either of Boris II (though
one gathers that Boris was hardly old enough), or of some elder but now dead son of Peter’s.
3. Such was the fate of the Princesses of Samuel’s family (see below, p. 257).
4. The date (Jan. 30) is supplied by the Office of Tsar Peter (see Ivanov, Bulgarski Starini, p.
83). For the year, see Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 2, p. 589. As he shows, 969 must be correct, though I
disagree with some of his other dates.
205
bring you peace. [1] And Peter had not even lived gloriously. Death alone was kind to him, for it
spared him the woes that were coming to his country.
On Peter’s death the Emperor sent his sons back to their homes from Constantinople; and the
elder, Boris, ascended the throne. Boris was probably in his middle twenties. In character and
ability he was alike mediocre; the only thing about him that was really remarkable was his thick
red beard. [2] His accession brought with it no new policy. Indeed, under the circumstances,
there was nothing to be done, save to put the country into some state of defence, and then await
the inevitable onrush of the Russians.
The storm broke in the early autumn of that year (969). [3] The great Princess Olga died during
the summer, and Svyatoslav now had nothing to retain him at Kiev. He set off at once with an
army of Russians and Petchenegs and Magyar subjects or mercenaries for his new capital of
Preslav-on-the-Danube, and from there marched into the heart of Bulgaria. Whatever defences
Boris may have organized, they fell utterly to pieces before the Russian hordes. [4] They swept
down through the northern provinces, on to Great Preslav itself; after a sharp battle the capital
fell into their hands, and in it they took prisoner the Tsar, his brother Romanus, and all his
family. [5] From Preslav they moved to Philippopolis, the greatest town of the south.
Philippopolis, it seems, made a brave but
1. Zhivot Jovana Rilskog, p. 279.
3. For the dating see Appendix X.
4. ’Nestor’ says that the Russian army was only 10,000 strong (p. 56); the later Greeks, however,
considered it thirty times as large (300,000; Zonaras, iii., p. 524: 308,000; Cedrenus, ii., p. 384).
‘Nestor’s’ number probably represents the pure Russians; but there were the additional
Petcheneg, Magyar, and, later, Bulgarian auxiliaries. Probably Leo Diaconus’s estimate (p. 109)
of 30,000 is fairly correct.
5. Cedrenus, ii., p. 383: Chronique dite de Nestor, p. 55. Here I think Pereia-slavets is Great
Preslav, not, as before, Preslav-on-the-Danube.
206
feckless show of resistance; Svyatoslav in revenge impaled twenty thousand of its inhabitants.
[1] By the fall of winter the Russians had overrun and held firmly the whole of Eastern Bulgaria,
as far as the Thracian frontier of the Empire. There they paused to winter, Calocyras still with
them and urging them on. His ambitions were boundless now; the Russians should carry him in
triumph to Constantinople, and there, as Emperor, he would reward them with his province of
Bulgaria. [2]
There was great alarm in Constantinople; and it was not allayed by a grand tragedy in the Palace.
On December io, 969, the Emperor Nicephorus was murdered by the order of his wife
Theophano and her lover, his best general, John Tzimisces. In the retribution that followed the
Empress was deserted and dispatched into exile; and John, doubly traitorous, became Emperor.
[3] John was an excellent soldier and an able statesman, younger and less scrupulous than his
predecessor. The Empire had no reason to regret his elevation. But for Bulgaria it was less
felicitous.
John at first attempted to negotiate with Svyatoslav. He sent to him offering to complete the
subsidies promised by Nicephorus—their payment had presumably been stopped when
Nicephorus allied himself with Bulgaria; and he requested him to evacuate what was, he said, a
rightful possession of the Empire. Those words must have fallen strangely on the ears of the
Bulgarian captives at the Great Prince’s Court. But Svyatoslav’s reply was to order John to cross
into Asia; he would only consider a peace that gave him all the European lands of the Emperor,
and if he were not given them he would come and take them. Despite this ferocity, John sent a
second message, sterner but still conciliatory, probably to gain more
2. Cedrenus, loc. cit.
3. Leo Diaconus, pp. 84 ff.
207
time. Again Svyatoslav issued an insulting message to the Imperial ambassadors. So both sides
settled down to war. [1]
It was a war that was miserable for Bulgaria. The Bulgarians, weary and disunited, had at last
met the fate for which diplomats at Constantinople so long had plotted; they had succumbed to
barbarians from the Steppes. And now they had to watch the barbarians and the Imperial armies
fighting over their lands, knowing that, whichever might be victorious, neither would give them
back their independence. They were a melancholy sight—the Tsar a captive in his palace, his
soldiers taken off to swell the ranks of the Russians, while the merchants and the farmers
watched the ruined tracks of war and the heretic peasants sulked in passive indolence. Only in
the west, where the Russians never penetrated, was there still some active national life and
feeling: which would bear fruit later.
In the summer of 970 the Russians advanced into Thrace. The Emperor sent his brother-in-law,
Bardas Sclerus, out to meet them. After preliminary skirmishes there was a great battle at
Arcadiopolis, the Lule-Burgas of to-day. It was a long-drawn-out contest, full of heroic hand-to-
hand combats; but in the end the Russians were beaten, and swept back, with their numbers sadly
reduced, to Bulgaria. But the Imperial army did not follow up its advantage. Probably the year
was too well advanced; and John Tzimisces wished to make fuller preparations before
adventuring an army into the Balkan mountains. [2]
1. Leo Diaconus, pp. 105 ff., after giving a rough and inaccurate history of the early Bulgars:
Chronique dite de Nestor, pp. 55 ff., giving it all in a light flattering to Russian pride: Cedrenus
ii., pp. 383 ff.
2. Ibid., pp. 108 ff.: Cedrenus, ii., pp. 384 ff. The attempts of Russian historians (e.g. Drinov,
Yuzhnye Slavyane i Vizantiya, p. 101) to prove that this was really a Russian victory are a
scandalous piece of misguided patriotism, as Schlumberger (L’Epopée Byzantine, i., pp. 57—9)
has shown: though, of course, the figures given by Greek chroniclers of the casualties have been
exaggerated owing to similar patriotism.
208
But the delay was made longer than the Emperor had hoped. Throughout the autumn of 970 and
the winter he assembled troops and prepared his fleet; but in the early spring of 971 news came
to Constantinople of the serious revolt at Amassa of Bardas Phocas, the late Emperor’s nephew.
John’s armies had to march to Asia instead of to the north. Thus the season was lost, and the
Russians remained, keeping their heavy yoke upon Bulgaria. As the year moved on they
recovered some of their confidence, and in the autumn conducted some raids round Adrianople.
Their task was made the easier by the gross incompetence of the local Imperial governor, the
Emperor’s cousin, John Curcuas, a man abnormally fond of eating and drinking. [1]
By the new year of 972 the rebel Bardas Phocas was defeated, and the ships and the soldiers
were almost ready for the Bulgarian campaign. When spring came the Emperor set out from
Constantinople, blessed by the holiest of the city’s relics, at the head of a huge, well-trained, and
richly furnished army. Meanwhile his fleet of fire-shooting galleys sailed to the Danube, to cut
off the Russians’ retreat. Russian spies in the guise of ambassadors waited on the Emperor at
Rhaedestus, but he let them go free. He marched on through Adrianople, and in the last days of
Lent crossed the frontier and began to wind his way through the Pass of Veregava and the other
defiles of the Balkan mountains on the road to Preslav. By a strange good fortune the Russians
had left these passes unguarded. Whether, as John himself suggested, they had not expected the
Emperor to go campaigning in Holy Week, or whether, as is more likely, the Bulgarian
population was restive and the Russians had not enough
1. Leo Diaconus, p. 126. This John was probably the grandson of Romanus I’s general, John
Curcuas, John Tzimisces’s great-uncle : his father was called Romanus.
209
troops to spare, they certainly neglected the one satisfactory opportunity of checking John’s
advance.
On Wednesday, April 3, the Emperor arrived before Great Preslav. The city was defended by
Svyatoslav’s third-in-command, Svengel, a Varangian of immense stature and bravery, [1] and
by the traitor Calocyras. Svyatoslav himself was at Dristra, on the Danube, probably trying to
keep open communications with Russia in the teeth of the Imperial fleet. The Russians at once
gave battle, but after a terrible and long-undecided conflict they were severely defeated and fell
back behind the city walls. Next morning, on Holy Thursday, reinforcements reached the
Emperor, including his latest machines for shooting fire. Thereupon he gave the order for assault
of the city to begin.
During the night Calocyras, who had noticed the Imperial insignia among the attacking force,
and who knew what his fate would be were he captured and recognized, slipped out of the city
and fled to Svyatoslav’s camp at Dristra. Svengel, however, defended the walls as best he could;
but the Russians, weakened by the previous day’s battle, could not man the huge enceinte
properly against the outnumbering assailants, and they were no match for the Greek Fire. After a
few hours’ desperate fighting they retired, as many as could, into the inner city, the fortress-
palace of the Tsars.
The Emperor’s troops burst into the outer city and overran it, slaying what Russians they met.
Many, too, of the Bulgarian inhabitants perished, guilty or suspected of having helped the
heathen barbarians. In the midst of the butchery they came upon Tsar Boris and his wife and two
children, for over two years the prisoners of the Russians.
1. ‘ Σφέγκελος. ’ Drinov (op. cit., p. 104) identifies him with ‘Nestor’s’ Svienald, a Varangian
chief who had served under Igor and who was mentioned in the peace of 972, but, according to
Leo Diaconus, he was killed before Dristra.
210
This miserable family was brought before the Emperor. John deigned to receive them graciously,
saluting Boris as Prince [1] of the Bulgars, and saying he was come to avenge the injuries
inflicted on Bulgaria by the Russians. But, though he released Bulgarian prisoners, his actions
put a curious interpretation on his words.
Meanwhile, his soldiers besieged the Palace, a vast, well-fortified group of buildings forming,
like the Great Palace at Constantinople, a town within the city. The Russians resisted with some
success till the Emperor brought fire to his aid. Flames swept over the palace buildings, burning
the Russian warriors or forcing them out to the open, to their deaths. Svengel, with a small
bodyguard, fled through the Imperial army to Dristra. Thus by the evening all Preslav was in the
Emperor’s hands.
Good Friday morning broke on a mass of smouldering ruins and streets choked with corpses. It
was the end of Great Preslav, the city that so few years before had been the largest and wealthiest
of all the cities of Eastern Europe, save only Constantinople. The Emperor John spent the Easter
week-end there, restoring order and refreshing his army, and sending a curt embassy to
Svyatoslav at Dristra, to bid him either lay down his arms and beg for pardon, or meet the
Imperial armies and be slain. A few days later he set out in full force for Dristra. Before he left,
he rebuilt the fortifications of Preslav and re-christened it after his own name, Ioannupolis.
Henceforward it should be a minor provincial city of the Empire, distinguished only for the
vastness of its ruins.
Svyatoslav at Dristra heard of his troops’ disaster in a wild fury. There were large numbers of
Bulgarian hostages or unwilling auxiliaries at his camp, and on them he
1. ‘ Κοίρανον, ’ not ‘ βασιλέα ’ in Leo Diaconus (p. 136). However, Leo speaks of him as ‘
βασιλεύς, ’ and Cedrenus says that John called him ‘ βασιλέα ’ (ii., p. 396).
211
gave rein to his rage. Suspecting treachery from their compatriots, knowing that even Imperial
rule was better in their eyes than his, and, determining to terrorize them into alliance, he threw
the Bulgarians in his power into chains, and beheaded all the magnates and the bоyars, to the
number of three hundred. [1] Later, as the Emperor approached, he released the humbler
Bulgarians and enrolled them in his armies; but he ordered his Petcheneg allies to mow them
down without mercy should they attempt treachery or flight.
From Preslav John marched to Pliska, the ancient capital, and thence, by way of a town called
Dinea, to Dristra. He arrived before the city on Saint George’s Day; and at once the two armies
met in battle on the plain outside the walls. It was another hard, heroic contest, but by nightfall
the Russians were driven back with heavy losses behind their fortifications. John could not,
however, proceed at once with the siege; his fleet had not yet arrived to cut the Russians off on
the river side. He spent April 24 in fortifying his camp on a hillock close by, but on the 25th
impatiently ordered an assault. This attack failed, as also a rival sortie of the Russians; but in the
evening the Emperor saw his great fleet come sailing up the Danube. On the 26th, after a third
great battle, the siege of Dristra began. John had hoped to take the city by storm, but almost at
once he realized its impossibility. Restraining his army’s ardour, he waited, closely guarding
every access to the city.
The weeks passed by, full of stirring episodes. The Russians made many murderous sorties, but
they never could break right through the besiegers’ circles; nor could their arrows keep the Greek
Fire from burning their ships.
1. The number is supplied by Scylitzes (Cedrenus, ii., p. 400), who, however, has an unfailing
habit of exaggerating numbers. He also says that the Bulgarian prisoners in Dristra numbered
20,000.
212
The Bulgarians recognized that it was only a question of time now. Many of their northern cities,
including Constantia (Kostanza) sent deputations to the Emperor’s camp, handing over their keys
to him and offering him help. Nevertheless, while John sat before Dristra, fortune almost upset
his whole career; the restless and vindictive family of the Phocae once more rose in rebellion, in
Constantinople itself; and only the energy of the eunuch Basil the Paracoemomenus, son of
Romanus Lecapenus and a Bulgarian woman, saved John his throne.
As July wore on, the Russians grew desperate. They had lost many of their finest heroes,
including Svengel, the defender of Preslav, and their food was running short. Finally, on July 21,
Svyatoslav held a council with his generals, at which, after long discussions, they decided, at the
Great Prince’s exhortation, to make one last attempt to fight their way to freedom. On the 24th
[1] they burst out of the city with all the force and courage of despair. So furious was their attack
that the Imperial forces almost gave way before them; and for a moment their fate hung in the
balance.
In Constantinople everyone waited eagerly for news from the Danube. On the night of the 23rd a
pious nun had a dream; she saw the Mother of God herself, protectress of the city, summon Saint
Theodore Stratilates, the soldier, and bid him go to the aid of their beloved servant John. At
Dristra during the battle men noticed a noble warrior on a white horse dealing destruction
amongst the pagan hordes. When, afterwards, the Emperor sought him out to thank him, he could
not be found. Saint Theodore may have saved the Empire. The battle
1. Leo Diaconus (p. 152) dates it Friday, July 24; but in 972 July 24 was a Wednesday. In
Cedrenus (ii., p. 405) the day before Svyatoslav’s council of war is dated July 20; the attack
would therefore fall on July 22. I follow Leo’s monatal dating, as he is usually the more reliable,
but, considering that he is self-contradictory, the whole thing remains unsatisfactory.
213
certainly was full of strange incidents; John even offered to settle it in single combat with
Svyatoslav. But the Imperial victory was in the main due to John’s adoption of the old Parthian
tactics of a feigned retreat. By nightfall the Russians were routed, this time beyond all hope of a
recovery.
On the morning of the 23rd, Svyatoslav bowed to fate and sent envoys to the Emperor. He only
asked now to be allowed to cross the river without an attack from the terrible fire-shooting ships,
and to be given a little food for the starving remnant of his men. [1] In return he promised to
hand over all the prisoners that he had made, to evacuate Dristra and all Bulgaria for ever, and
never to invade Cherson. He also begged that the previous commercial treaties and arrangements
about the Russians in Constantinople should be renewed. John Tzimisces, almost equally weary
of fighting, accepted his terms; and so the war was ended. Bulgaria had no voice in the treaty.
Before the Varangian prince retired to his northern country, he asked for an interview with the
Emperor. The monarchs met on the edge of the great river. John rode down clad in his golden
armour, with a splendid retinue; Svyatoslav came in a little boat, rowing with the other rowers,
distinguished from them only in that his plain white robe was slightly cleaner than theirs; and he
wore one golden earring, set with two pearls and a carbuncle, and from his shaven head fell two
long locks, signifying his rank. For the rest, he was of medium height, very well built, with fair
hair, blue eyes, an aquiline nose, and long moustaches—a true Norseman. Their conversation
was very short, but the two mortal enemies were enabled to see one another—the Swede that
1. Leo Diaconus (p. 156) says that 22,000 Russians remained, 38,000 having perished in the war.
These numbers might well be true.
214
ruled over Russia meeting the Armenian Emperor of the Romans, after this long contest for the
land of the Bulgarians. [1]
And so Svyatoslav returned sadly towards Kiev, sailing in his little ships down the Danube and
along the coast to the mouth of the Dnieper. Then he began his laborious journey up the river
through the territory of the Petchenegs. Winter overtook him there, and cold and hunger added to
his humiliations. Meanwhile the Petchenegs, forgetting the troops that they had sent to help him,
and rejoicing in his downfall, waited hungrily by; they could not believe that he was bringing
back no treasure from the war. The old Imperial ambassador, Philotheus of Euchaita, was at the
Court of Kouria, chief prince of the Petchenegs, making a separate peace in which they promised
never to cross the Danube. But when he asked them in the Emperor’s name to be merciful and let
the Russians through, they angrily refused. In the early spring Svyatoslav moved on up the
Dnieper. At the great Cataracts the Petchenegs lay in ambush, and as he came they fell on him
and slew him. Of his skull they made a drinking-cup, even as Krum had done with the skull of an
Emperor. [2]
John’s return home was very different. He rested in Dristra, rechristening it Theodorupolis, after
the saint that fought by his side; then he journeyed southward in glory, the royal family of
Bulgaria following in his train. All
1. The main source for the campaign is Leo Diaconus (pp. 105-159), whose account is very full
and who himself was alive at the time. Scylitzes’s account (Cedrenus, ii., pp. 392—413) is less
detailed, but provides one or two additional facts. Zonaras merely recapitulates him (iii., pp.
523—32). La Chronique dite de Nestor (pp. 53-59) is crude and over-patriotic, but brings out
facts such as Olga’s restraining influence. There is an excellent modern critical account of the
war in Schlumberger’s Epopée Byzantine, vol. i. chapters i.-iii.
2. La Chronique dite de Nestor, pp. 59—60, saying that the Greeks provoked the attack.
Cedrenus ii., p. 412, shows that the opposite was the case. Philotheus of Euchaïta is called here
Theophilus of Euchaïta.
215
Eastern Bulgaria lay in his power, from Preslav-on-the Danube and the new Theodorupolis, to
Philippopolis and the Great Fence frontier to the sea. Soon, he hoped, he might confirm his
rightful power over the turbulent poorer provinces of the west. In the meantime he celebrated his
triumph in Constantinople. A long and splendid procession wound from the Golden Gate down
the Triumphal Way to Saint Sophia. After rows of warriors and captives, there came a golden
chariot in which was borne the most precious of all the spoils, the icon of the Virgin of Bulgaria.
Whence this icon came we do not know, but the Emperor revered it exceedingly and draped it in
the Imperial mantle of the Tsars. Behind it rode the Emperor John on his white horse; and after
him, on foot, there came the Tsar of the Bulgarians. At the cathedral John laid the icon and the
crown-jewels of Bulgaria on the altar of God’s Wisdom; the crown itself was a thing of
marvellous richness and beauty. The Court then moved to the palace, and there, before all the
dignitaries of the Empire, Boris of Bulgaria abdicated his throne. [1]
Vengeance had fallen on the seed of Krum and of Symeon. The Empire in the end had
conquered. The Emperor treated the fallen monarch kindly; he was given the title of Magister,
and took his place amongst the Imperial nobility. His brother Romanus was made a eunuch. [2]
The abdication of the Tsar had released the Empire from its legal obligations; the Emperor could
declare Bulgaria to be forfeited to himself. At the same time he abolished the independence of
the Bulgarian Church. A quiet end was given to the patriarchate of Preslav, whither the see had
been moved after the death of
1. Leo Diaconus, pp. 158-9: Cedrenus, ii., pp. 412-13.
2. Ibid., loc. cit. When Romanus was captured and when he was castrated are alike unknown. He
appears as a eunuch a few years later (Cedrenus, ii., p. 435), having been castrated by the
Paracoemomenus Joseph. Boris’s two children were probably daughters, as we hear no more of
them.
216
Damian of Dristra. [1] Bulgaria, like any other province of the Empire, should depend on the
Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
In Eastern Bulgaria, by the old capitals of the Balkan invaders, men were too war-worn to
protest. But Bulgarians still lived on the slopes of Vitosh and of Rila, and in the valleys and
lakesides of Albania and Upper Macedonia. There the Russians had never come spreading
desolation, nor the Emperor in all his might to combat them, and to reap the harvest that they had
sown with blood. There the Bulgarians were proud and unconquered, scorning the decrees that
were issued on the Bosphorus. The house of Krum had faded in ignominy; but, even as the
afternoon was passing into night and the shadows had gathered, the sky was lit up in the west
with golden and with red.
1. See above, p. 182, and references given there.
CHAPTER III
The end of an empire
In the west of Bulgaria, at the time of the Russian invasions, there lived a count or provincial
governor called Nicholas. By his wife Rhipsimé he had four sons, whom he named David,
Moses, Aaron, and Samuel; to the world they were collectively known as the Comitopuli, the
Count’s children. [1] Of what province Nicholas was governor we do not know, nor when he
died. By the time of the abdication of Tsar Boris, his sons had succeeded to his influence; and to
them the Western Bulgarians looked to preserve their independence.
Of the history of this revolution we know nothing. The Emperor John Tzimisces was apparently
unconcerned by troubles in Bulgaria after his victory at Dristra. His attention was mainly turned
to his eastern frontier. We only hear that, following the old Imperial policy, he established large
numbers of Armenians, Paulician heretics, round Philippopolis and on the borders of Thrace. [2]
This would dilute and weaken the Slavs; but it weakened them chiefly in the one way which as a
pious Emperor he might regret—it increased the vigour of the Dualist heresy. To the provinces
further to the west he paid no attention. It
1. In Drinov (op. cit., p. 88) and Jireček (Geschichte, pp. 173, 186, 189), and other works, we
hear of a certain Shishman who was the father of the Comitopuli. His existence is deduced solely
from a list of the Tsars of Bulgaria interpolated probably as late as the eighteenth century, in the
Register of Zographus (see Zlatarski, op. cit., pp. 638-9). The Charter of Pincius (see Farlati’s
Illyricum Sacrum, iii., pp. 111-12), calling the Tsar ‘Stephen’ in 974, is equally suspicious
(Zlatarski, loc. cit.). The names Nicholas and Rhipsimé are given in a deed of Samuel’s (op. cit.,
p. 637), and in Bishop Michael of Devol’s MS. of Scylitzes (Prokič, Die Zusätze in der
Handschrift des Johan. Scylitzes, p. 28.)
2. Cedrenus, ii., p. 382.
217
218
was only after his death, in January 976, that statesmen at Constantinople fully realized the fact
that, not only were there large numbers of Bulgarians quite unconquered, but they were restively
and aggressively airing their independence. [1]
Already they had looked around for foreign support. At Easter time in 973 the old Western
Emperor, Otto I, was at Quedlinburg, receiving embassies from many varied nations; and among
them were envoys from the Bulgarians. But Otto was dying, and his son had other cares. Nothing
came of this mission. [2]
Meanwhile, at home, Samuel, the youngest of the Comitopuli, was establishing himself in sole
supremacy. How the brothers organized the independent kingdom is uncertain; possibly they
each took over a quarter of the country and ruled it as some form of a confederacy, with David,
the eldest, as their head. [3] Fortune, however, favoured Samuel. David was soon killed by Vlach
brigands at a spot called the Fair Oak Wood, between Castoria and Prespa, in the extreme south
of the kingdom. Moses set out to besiege the Imperial town of Serrae (Seres), probably in 976,
on the news of the death of the terrible Emperor John; there a stray stone cast by the defenders
ended his life. [4] Aaron had a gentler temperament
1. Cedrenus, ii., p. 434, says that the Comitopuli revolted on John Tzimisces’s death; but we
know that they were independent in 973 (see below). Probably the West Bulgarian question lay
dormant, till on John’s death the Bulgarians became actively aggressive. Drinov’s theory (loc.
cit.) of an independent Western Bulgaria that seceded in 963 depends on the existence of the
mythical Shishman and on a paragraph in Cedrenus, ii., p. 347, which has clearly been
interpolated out of place. Drinov has, however, been copied by Jireček and Schlumberger and the
Cambridge Mediaeval History.
2. Annales Hildesheimenses, p. 62. An embassy from Constantinople arrived at the same time.
3. Zlatarski (op. cit., p. 640) definitely divides up the country between them. I think that rather
too confident.
4. Cedrenus, ii., p. 435. He mentions Aaron’s death at the same time as David’s and Moses’s,
though actually it occurred later. The legend of David’s retirement, as the sainted Tsar David,
into a monastery, given in Païssius (Istoriya Slaveno-bolgarskaya, pp. 33, 63, 66, 70), and in
Zhepharovitch’s Stemmatigraphion (eighteenth-century works, though compiled from older
sources), is obviously of no historical value. See Zlatarski (op. cit., pp. 646-7).
219
than his brothers, it seems, for it was his pacifism that was to prove his ruin in the end. At the
moment he was content to play second fiddle to Samuel, who probably by the year 980, if not
before, was enjoying the title of Tsar. [1]
From the Peace of Dristra till his death in 976 the Emperor John had ignored the west, though
probably he intended to deal with it later, when an occasion should arise. On his death the young
Basil II, already for thirteen years a nominal Emperor, succeeded to the full authority. But for
four years Basil’s hands were tied by the great rebellion of Bardas Sclerus in Asia. Even till 985
his position was insecure; he himself was gay and careless, while all his ministers and generals
plotted against him.
These years gave Samuel his opportunity. Already in 976 the Comitopuli had been aggressive
enough to attack Seres; and, though that attack failed, under cover of such action they were able
to establish themselves over all of Peter’s former Empire west of a line drawn south from the
Danube considerably to the eastward of Sofia; though Philippopolis lay to the east of it. At the
same time Samuel sought to add prestige and spiritual force to his dominion by refusing to
acquiesce in the extinction of the independent patriarchate. The old seats, Dristra and Preslav,
were no longer available; but, it seems, a Patriarch, called Gabriel or Germanus, was established
first in Sofia, and later moved to Vodena, and thence to Moglena and to Prespa; on his death his
successor, Philip, had his
1. For Aaron’s career see below, pp. 230-1. With regard to Samuel, I think that he already called
himself Tsar by the time of Boris’s and Romanus’s escape (see below, pp. 220-1); but
Constantinople never recognized the title.
220
seat at Ochrida. [1] These peregrinations probably coincided with the movements of Samuel’s
Court, which, after visiting Sofia and Vodena, settled for about the last fifteen years of the
century at Prespa, and soon after 1000 moved to Ochrida, the holy city of Clement and of
Nahum, the real centre of Western Bulgarian civilization. [2] The presence of a patriarchate
under his close control must have greatly strengthened Samuel’s hands, especially as Samuel,
unlike Peter, could not be suspected of leanings towards the Greeks. But Samuel also seems to
have dealt tactfully with the Bogomils. We have no direct evidence; but throughout his career he
seems never to have come into collision with the people. Probably the aristocracy of his realm
was more Slav than Bulgar, and therefore there was less cause for friction than there had been in
Peter’s reign, round the old Bulgar capitals. Possibly, too, the Bogomil heresy never penetrated
far into Macedonia, where Clement had established the orthodox faith on more popular
foundations.
Samuel’s consolidation was very nearly wrecked by an embarrassing escapade on the part of the
sons of Peter. Soon after the Emperor John’s death the ex-Tsar Boris and his brother Romanus
escaped from Constantinople and set out for Samuel’s court at Vodena. It would have been
difficult for Samuel to know how to receive his former sovereign; and Boris probably did not
realize that he was seeking refuge with a rebel. However, fate intervened.
1. In Ducange’s List of Bulgarian Archbishops (op. cit., p. 175), Gabriel-Germanus, the first
after 972, resided at Vodena, then Prespa. In Basil II’s ordinances about the Bulgarian Church,
quoted in Gelzer (in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, ii., pp. 44—5), Sofia (Sardica, Triaditza, or
Sreditza), Vodena, Moglena, and Prespa appear as having been seats of the patriarchate.
Gabriel’s successor, Philip, is placed in Ducange’s list (loc. cit.) at Ochrida.
2. Zlatarski (op. cit., p. 640) makes Sofia Aaron’s capital; but I do not think that the land was
divided up so definitely. I think that the capital moved with the patriarchate. By 986 (the capture
of Larissa), Samuel’s capital was Prespa (see below, p. 222; also Presbyter Diocleae, p. 294). By
1002 it was Ochrida (see Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 2, pp. 702-3).
221
As the brothers reached a wood on the frontier, a Bulgarian outpost took them to be Imperial
spies; and Boris was shot dead by a Bulgarian arrow. Romanus managed to save his life, hastily
explaining who he was. At first the soldiers received him with enthusiasm as their Tsar. But their
zeal died down when they learnt that he was a eunuch, and they took him to Samuel. It has
always been a cardinal principle that no eunuch can sit upon a throne, so Romanus by himself
presented no difficulty. Samuel took him into his service and gave him various honourable
positions. [1]
Secure in his own dominions, Samuel soon indulged in further aggressions abroad. All along the
frontier, in Thrace and Macedonia and on the Adriatic coast, there were ceaseless and destructive
Bulgarian raids. But from the year 980 onwards he concentrated particularly on the Greek
peninsula, directing his main attention against the city of Larissa in Thessaly. Every spring,
before the harvest was reaped, he led his army down into the fertile plain and sat before the city.
But Larissa was defended by a wily soldier. In 980 a certain Cecaumenus, of Armenian origin,
was appointed Strategus of Hellas—the theme in which Larissa was included. Each year, as
Samuel approached, Cecaumenus hastily made his submission to him: until such time as the
season’s harvest was gathered and the city amply provisioned; then Larissa
1. Cedrenus, ii., p. 435, who tells of the brothers’ escape and of Boris’s death, and announces
that he will tell more of Romanus later, which he does on p. 455. Yachya of Antioch (translated
in Rosen, Imperator Vasilii Bolgaroboïtsa, pp. 20-1) amplifies the story by saying that Romanus
was proclaimed Tsar, and proceeds as though it was Romanus who conducted the war against
Basil. But Yachya apparently did not realize that Romanus was a eunuch, which would prevent
him occupying the throne. Zlatarski (op. cit., pp. 650—60) assumes from Yachya that Romanus
was Tsar with ‘Comitopulus’ working for him; but it was unheard of that a eunuch should reign;
moreover, Yachya, writing at a distance, clearly mistook Romanus for Samuel most of the time,
especially with regard to his death (p. 58), which is an utter muddle. I think that Uspenski is
right, in his review of Rosen’s book, not to take Yachya too seriously.
222
reannounced its allegiance to the Emperor, who highly approved of this manoeuvre. Samuel,
who could not, or did not wish to, attempt to storm the city, thus found it, on its revolt from him,
in a fit state to stand a protracted siege. And so for three years he was foiled in his ambitions
against it. But in 983 Cecaumenus was recalled, and the new strategus was unwise and honest in
his loyalty. When next Samuel invaded Thessaly he found the country openly hostile; so he
destroyed all the crops. After three seasons of such treatment, in 986 Thessaly was more or less
in a state of famine; and when that summer he began a close blockade on Larissa, the city was
soon face to face with starvation. To such straits were the inhabitants reduced that a woman was
found eating the thigh of her late husband: whereupon the authorities decided to surrender.
Samuel treated the population with severity, selling them all as slaves, with the exception of the
family of Niculitzes, one of the local gentry. For some reason Niculitzes, who was a connection
of Cecaumenus, was spared, and showed his gratitude by taking service under Samuel. [1]
Amongst the captives was a little girl called Irene, whose beauty was later to raise her to a fatal
eminence. Along with the population, Samuel transferred the city’s holiest relics, the bones of its
bishop, Saint Achilleus, to decorate and sanctify his new capital at Prespa. [2]
The capture of Larissa scandalized Constantinople. Already there had been growing anxiety
there about the Bulgarian menace. In 985, when a great comet trailed across the sky, the poet
John Geometrus wrote an ode
1. Cecaumeni, Strategicon, ed. Vassilievsky and Jernstedt, pp. 65-6, written by the Strategus’s
grandson. The date is fixed by evidence provided by an anonymous writer in the same MS.,
whose grandfather, Niculitzes, probably the father of the turncoat of Larissa (ibid. p. 96), was
Strategus of Hellas in 980. See preface (ibid., pp. 4, 7) and the excellent account in
Schlumberger, op. cit., pp. 622 ff.
223
entitled with grim punning ‘To The Comitopulus’ in which he presaged woe and called for his
great hero, the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, to rise from the dead and save his Empire. [1] But,
though Nicephorus was gone for ever, the Emperor Basil was ready to act as his stepfather’s
substitute. In 985 he had disgraced the great Paracoemomenus Basil, on the suspicion of some
vast plot, the secret of which has never been unravelled. [2] The strain of the experience utterly
changed the young Emperor’s character. He was now aged twenty-seven. Hitherto Basil had
been gay and dissipated and idle; henceforward he threw all that aside, and schooled himself into
a state of relentless asceticism, unrivalled in Byzantium save among the holiest saints. He
hardened his body to welcome discomfort and his mind to distrust culture. Henceforward his
energy was unflagging; he thought nothing of campaigning at seasons when armies usually
reposed in winter quarters; he was unmoved by horrors or by pity. He became a terrible figure,
chaste and severe, eating and sleeping sparsely, clad in unrelieved dark garments, never even
wearing the purple cloak nor the diadem on his head. He concentrated on one thing only, the
establishment and consolidation of his own personal power, as Emperor, for the harmony of the
Empire. [3] Tsar Samuel, a Bulgarian rebel in the Emperor’s eyes, [4] might well fear such an
adversary, for all his own boldness and ruthlessness. But as yet the
1. Joannes Geometrus, Carmina, p. 920.
2. This episode is admirably told in Schlumberger, op. cit., pp. 573 ff.
3. Psellus, Chronographia, pp. 16—19—a portrait and character sketch of Basil II.
4. Cecaumenus, in his correspondence with the central Government, talks of the ‘Rebel Samuel’
(Strategicon, p. 65). According to Matthew of Edessa (p. 34), Basil ordered the Bulgarian rebels
to submit in 986. Asoghic (pp. 124–5) traces the war to a story of the Bulgarian king asking fcr
an Imperial wife and having a substitute foisted off on to him. This must be a complete legend.
224
change brought no result. The Emperor was young and untried.

Moreover, his first trial of strength against Bulgaria was disastrous. In the summer of 986, as
soon as possible after the news from Larissa had reached him, he set out with a large army into
the heart of the Balkans, along the old Roman road past Philippopolis. His objective was Sofia,
the capture of which would prevent the Bulgarians from expanding into their old eastern
provinces. The Emperor’s approach brought Samuel hurrying back from Thessaly, and, with
Aaron and the eunuch-prince Romanus, he marched up to defend the city. The Imperial troops
successfully passed up the River Maritsa, and through the Gate of Trajan (the Pass of Kapulu
Derbend) into the plain in which Sofia lies; there they encamped at a village called Stoponium,
just beyond the pass, some forty miles from Sofia, to wait for the rearguard to come up.
Meanwhile Samuel had time to occupy the mountains near the city. At last, at the end of July,
Basil moved on again and reached the walls of Sofia. But his attempted siege was marked with
ill success. Owing to mismanagement or lethargy—it was the height of summer—or mere
treachery, his soldiers conducted themselves half-heartedly: while a surprise Bulgarian attack on
his foraging parties made the whole army short of provisions. After only twenty days Basil gave
the order to retreat. Already discouraged and depressed, he had heard disquieting rumours. He
had left the Magister Leo Melissenus to guard the passes through which he came. The Domestic
Contostephanus now spread a report that Melissenus, of whom he was desperately jealous, was
engaged in deserting his post and betraying the Emperor. Melissenus had played a somewhat
equivocal part in Syria shortly before ; and so the Emperor’s suspicions were easily roused
against him. Basil would
225
not risk his throne by remaining in the depths of Bulgaria.
The first day of the retreat passed quietly enough; but the Imperial army, encamping that night in
a wood, was reduced almost to panic by a rumour that the Bulgarians were in possession of the
passes and by the passage of a brilliant meteor across the sky. Next day, Tuesday, August 17, as
it entered the defiles, Samuel suddenly swooped down from the mountains. The carnage was
tremendous, and all the Imperial baggage was captured. The author, Leo Diaconus, was only
saved by the agility of his horse. It was with a pathetically small remnant of his army that the
Emperor Basil reached Philippopolis. On his way he discovered that Melissenus had remained at
the passes with perfect loyalty, and that the perfidious conspirator was Contostephanus.
Humiliated and angry, Basil reached Constantinople, vowing that some day he would be
avenged. Giving voice to the disappointment of the Empire, John Geometrus wrote another ode,
entitled ‘To the Woe of the Romans in the Bulgarian Defile.’ [1]
Of the next years we know little. Samuel apparently followed up his victory by overrunning
Eastern Bulgaria, capturing the old capitals, Preslav and Pliska, and establishing his power as far
as the Black Sea coast. [2] Soon afterwards he turned his attention to the west, against the great
Imperial city of Dyrrhachium. How, or exactly
1. Joannes Geometrus, Carmina, p. 934. Leo Diaconus took part himself in the campaign, of
which he gives a vivid account (pp. 171–3), though he does not mention the treachery of
Contostephanus. That is told by Scylitzes (Cedrenus, ii., pp. 436–8). Leo’s failure to mention it
does not, I think, render the story suspect. Basil would certainly try to keep it at the time from his
soldiers. Moreover, Leo mentions that there was a rumour that the passes were in Bulgarian
hands. Asoghic mentions the campaign, but with fictitious details.
2. Basil had to recapture them in his 1001 campaign (see below, p. 235). They were probably
occupied now; indeed, Basil’s attack on Sofia seems to imply that Samuel was known to be
contemplating an eastern campaign.
226
when, it fell into his hands we do not know; probably it was before the year 989. The
government of the city was given to the Tsar’s father-in-law, John Chryselius. [1] The capture of
Dyrrhachium gave Bulgaria an outlet on the Adriatic, and put the country in direct touch with the
West. Samuel had, it seems, already received a confirmation of his Imperial title from the
Pope—probably from some creature of Saxon Emperors such as Benedict VII, at the time of the
Emperor Otto II’s wars against the Eastern Empire in 981 or 982; certainly the Pope did not, or
could not, insist that his recognition should be accompanied by a declaration of his spiritual
suzerainty. [2] At present, however, Samuel could hope for little aid from the West. The ruler of
the West was a Greek, the Empress-Mother Theophano, sister to the Eastern Emperor Basil.
Basil had been unable to prevent Samuel’s expansion. From 986 to 989 he was distracted again
by great rebellions in Asia, those of Bardas Phocas and Bardas Sclerus. The year 989 was the
gloomiest of all at Constantinople. On April 7 the Aurora Borealis lit up the sky with terrible
pillars of fire, presaging woe; and soon news came that the Russians had captured Cherson and
the Bulgarians had captured Berrhoea. [3] The Russians soon gave up their conquest, tamed by
conversion to Christianity and appeased by the gift of an Imperial bride to their Great Prince—
Basil’s own sister Anna was sacrificed in marriage to Vladimir, son of the savage Svyatoslav.
But Basil could not so easily dispose of the Bulgarians.
Berrhoea, situated among the foothills of Macedonia,

1. Yachya (p. 27) and Joannes Geometrus, Carmina, p. 955, both make allusions to Samuel’s
aggressions in the west about 988–9. Probably these refer especially to the capture of
Dyrrhachium, which remained in Samuel’s hands till 1005. (See below, p. 239.)
2. Innocent III (Ep., p. 1112) refers to Samuel as having been papally recognized as Emperor.
227
was one of the strongest fortresses that guarded the approach to Thessalonica; and it was soon
clear that the great seaport was the object of Samuel’s present ambitions. After Berrhoea, the
Bulgarians, under Samuel’s lieutenant, Demetrius Polemarchius, managed by a ruse to capture
the fortress of Serbia (Selfidje) [1]; and Bulgarian marauders began to occupy the countryside
right down to the Aegean coast. Things became so serious that Basil was forced into fresh action.
Already in 988 he had attempted to guard against Bulgarian encroachments by establishing
colonies of Armenians on the Macedonian frontier; but they had proved ineffectual. By the end
of 990, however, his troubles in Asia and with the Russians were settled, and he could plan more
drastic steps.
Early next spring the Emperor set out for Thessalonica. At the end of February he passed through
the Thracian village of Didymotichum, where the old rebel Bardas Sclerus was living now in
retirement. Basil went to interview him, and invited him to come to the war; but Bardas refused,
on the plea of old age and infirmity—with justification, for he died a few days later, on March 7.
[2] Meanwhile Basil reached Thessalonica, where he paid his vows at the altar of Saint
Demetrius, patron of the city and one of the most helpful of all the saints that watched over the
Empire. He also won the support of a living local saint, called Photius, who prayed for him
nightly throughout his campaigns. [3]
But of these campaigns we know nothing, save that for four years the Emperor remained in
Macedonia, capturing many cities, razing some and garrisoning others, and
1. Cecaumenus, Strategicon, pp. 28–9—undated, but this seems to be the most probable
occasion. Demetrius caught the Imperial commanders bathing outside the walls.
2. Yachya, p. 27.
3. Encomium of Saint Photius of Thessalonica, quoted in Vasilievski, Odin iz Grecheskikh

Sbornikov, p. 100— 1.
228
eventually returned to Constantinople with a large amount of prisoners and booty. Among the
recaptured cities was Berrhoea. [1] It is to be doubted that Basil spent all four years in the field;
probably he made frequent journeys to his capital to superintend the government. We are told of
various Armenian warriors who took over the command in the Emperor’s absence. All seem to
have fought bravely, but in the end were worsted by the Bulgar. Foremost amongst them were
princes of the dispossessed house of Taron, which for some time past had intermarried with the
aristocracy of the Empire. Samuel’s movements during these years are very obscure. Probably he
kept to the mountains, following the old Bulgar practice of avoiding a pitched battle save when
the enemy should be caught in a difficult position, in some valley or defile. But Basil, wilier
now, never gave him the opportunity. This caution, however, kept Basil from completing his
work. He never risked advancing into the wild country that Samuel made his headquarters [2];
and so, for all his booty and captured fortresses, the Bulgarian menace was only very slightly
lessened when in 995 the Emperor was summoned again on urgent business to the east.
Basil left behind him, as commander on the Thessalonican front, Gregory, Prince of Taron. [3]
On the news of the Emperor’s departure, Samuel came down from the mountains and advanced
to Thessalonica. Deceived by the meagre force with which Samuel demonstrated before the
walls, Gregory sent his young son Ashot, with too few troops, out to meet him. They were
ambushed
1. Yachya, pp. 27-8. Scylitzes (Cedrenus, ii., p. 447) merely says that Basil visited Thessalonica,
to see to its defences and pray to Saint Demetrius. Asoghic (ii., p. 145) refers to the recapture of
Berrhoea and tells of the Armenian soldiers.
2. Ibn-al-Asir (Rosen, op. cit., p. 246) says that Basil reached the centre of Bulgaria. This
probably refers to his previous campaign against Sofia, then known as Sredetz (the centre).
229
by the main Bulgarian army and for the most part slain; Ashot himself was taken alive. Gregory,
hearing of it, lost his head and rashly hurried out to rescue his son. But he too fell into a
Bulgarian trap, and was butchered with almost all his army, fighting bravely. [1]
This disaster to the garrison was very serious, but Samuel did not venture to attack Thessalonica
itself. Instead, after ravaging the countryside and recapturing Berrhoea, he took his prisoners
back to his capital. Basil was too busy to come back to Europe himself; but he sent one of his
ablest generals to command against the Bulgarians, Nicephorus Uranus, who arrived with
reinforcements at Thessalonica in the course of the year 996. [2]
Samuel was spending the season of 996 in the Greek peninsula. He had held its gateway Larissa
for ten years now, and he was able to advance unopposed up the Vale of Tempe and through
Thermopylae and Boeotia and Attica to the Isthmus of Corinth. There was a panic in the
Peloponnese; even the Strategus Apocaucus was affected by it, and fell ill from worry and
uncertainty as to how he could organize a defence. It needed all the tact and spiritual gifts of
Saint Nicon Metanoitë to soothe his shattered nerves. But, as everyone waited anxiously for the
attack, the news came that the Bulgarian army was in full retreat for the north. [3]
Nicephorus Uranus had followed Samuel into the peninsula, and succeeded in recapturing the
fortress of Larissa. Leaving his heavier accoutrements there, he passed on through Pharsalia and
over the hills of Othrys to the valley of the Spercheus. On the far bank of the river the
2. Ibid., loc. cit.: Berrhoea, retaken by Basil in 991, had to be again retaken in 1003. Samuel
must therefore have recaptured it now.
3. Ibid., loc. cit.: Nicon Metanoite, ed. Lampros, pp. 74-5. This incident must occur now (not, as
Schlumberger says, in 986)—the only occasion when we know that Samuel advanced on the
Isthmus of Corinth.
230
Bulgarians were encamped, laden with the spoils of Greece. The river was flooded from the
summer thunder-showers; and Samuel thought himself secure. But by night the Imperial troops
forced their way through the turgid torrent and fell upon his camp. The Bulgarians were
slaughtered as they slept. Samuel and his son Gabriel-Radomir were wounded, and only just
managed to escape with a few followers. Their losses were terrible; all their booty was
recovered, and all their prisoners released. Uranus returned in triumph to Thessalonica, and later
to celebrate in Constantinople the glory of having driven out the invaders from Greece. [1]
Yet, despite this victory, Basil could not venture on a final crushing campaign; he was still too
heavily committed in Asia. And so the next few years remained probably the most splendid in
Samuel’s career. After the first shock of his defeat he had written to the Emperor offering to
submit on terms; but soon he withdrew his offer, realizing that he was not at the moment to be
attacked. According to a rumour current in Antioch, he was negotiating when he heard that the
rightful Tsar (Romanus, son of Peter) had died in captivity at Constantinople. He at once broke
off the negotiations and proclaimed himself Tsar. But Romanus, so far from being a Tsar
imprisoned in Constantinople, was a eunuch in Samuel’s own service, and lived on for many
more years. Probably it is now that we must place the story told earlier by Scylitzes of Samuel’s
last surviving brother, Aaron. Aaron, more peaceful than Samuel, urged for terms to be made
with the Empire, and probably succeeded in winning the support of a large proportion of the
Bulgarians. His influence and his policy were alike distasteful to
1. Cedrenus, loc. cit. Sathas, Chronique de Galaxidi, and Schlumberger (op. cit., ii., pp. 139 ff.)
place here the story of the Bulgarian attack on the village of Galaxidi on the Gulf of Lepanto.
See above, p. 174.
231
Samuel; and so he was taken and summarily put to death with all his children, save one son only,
John Vladislav, who was saved by his cousin Gabriel-Radomir. Thus Samuel was left sole and
undisputed Tsar; but the news reached the eastern frontier of the Empire in a rather vague form,
which the local historians amended in their own imaginative way. [1] Samuel’s ruthlessness
cowed the peace party; and so when he decided to break off relations again with the Emperor
there was no opposition left. The internal history of Samuel’s reign is a blank to us. We only
know of his system of taxation, namely that every man to possess a yoke of oxen was obliged to
pay yearly a measure of corn, a measure of millet, and a flagon of wine. [2] This was no doubt a
very old Bulgarian system. It seems that the people, Bogomils as well as orthodox, made no
complaint against his rule, either from indifference or from terror. His lieutenants, on the other
hand, used all too frequently to betray him. This was probably due to the greater prospects of
material comfort and luxury that the Empire could offer; for Samuel’s Court in the Macedonian
mountains was lacking somewhat in refinement. The Comitopuli do not seem to have extended
the same patronage over letters and culture as did the monarchs of the house of Krum. On the
other hand, Samuel was a great builder. Not only did he throw great fortifications round his
strongholds; but from these years date several churches, still standing in part to this day. Near
Prespa the Church of Saint Germanus, and the church built on the island to hold the relics of
Saint Achilleus from Larissa, and in Ochrida—which became
1. Yachya (in Rosen), p. 34: Cedrenus, ii., p. 435. I do not think that Yachya deserves much
credence with regard to Bulgarian affairs. Scylitzes’s account is much more likely to be true. We
know that Aaron was living in 986 (from Michael’s MS. of Scylitzes, Prokič, p. 29). This seems
to be the most likely occasion for his pro-Greek policy to have been a menace, and also his death
may well provide the origin of Yachya’s story.
2. Cedrenus, ii., p. 530. Basil continued this system.
232
his capital soon after the turn of the century—the Churches of Saints Constantine and Helena and
Saint Sophia show his architectural zeal. The devastations and improvements of subsequent
generations make it hard now to pronounce upon their style. They appear to belong in temper to
the provincial Byzantine school, as opposed to the Imperial school of Constantinople—a school
in close touch with Armenian architecture. Possibly Samuel’s architects were Armenian captives
from the colonies in Macedonia; but more probably these churches represent the first ambitious
artistic efforts of the native Bulgarian-Slavs.
Comforts might be crude, but there was romance too in the Bulgarian Court. The Tsar, by his
wife Agatha Chryselia, had several children whose wild passions brought love into Bulgarian
history. Samuel had brought Ashot, the captive Prince of Taron, to his capital and kept him there
imprisoned. But Miroslava, the Tsar’s eldest daughter, caught sight of him and lost her heart.
Vowing to kill herself unless she became his bride, she secured his release. After their marriage,
Ashot was sent by his father-in-law to help in the government of Dyrrhachium. They betrayed
the Tsar later. [1]
About the same time—probably in 998—Samuel, checked for the moment in the south and the
east, determined to expand to the north-west, along the Adriatic coast; the possession of
Dyrrhachium showed him the value of being an Adriatic Power. He was too cautious to attempt,
like his predecessors, to conquer the valleys of inland Serbia; instead he kept to the coast, where
an excellent opportunity was given to him. The principality of Dioclea, modern Montenegro, was
suffering from the weak rule of a child, Vladimir. Samuel invaded his country, capturing the
town of Dulcigno and the person
1. Cedrenus, ii., p. 451: Prokič, p. 29.
233
of the young Prince without any effective opposition. Vladimir was sent into captivity at Prespa,
and Samuel moved northward and made himself suzerain of Terbunia, the principality that lay
next along the coast. In consequence of this Bulgarian aggrandizement, the Emperor Basil, who
could not afford to maintain squadrons so far away, formally handed over the policing of the
Adriatic to his loyal vassal-state of Venice. [1]
Again one of Samuel’s daughters intervened. Like her sister, the Princess Kosara was stirred by
the thought of a handsome young captive; and before long she fell in love with the Dioclean
prince. Samuel listened to Kosara’s prayers; Vladimir was released and restored to his throne,
with Kosara as his consort. At the same time Vladimir’s uncle, Dragomir, was established in
Terbunia. Both the princes acknowledged the overlordship of the Bulgarians, and Vladimir at
least abode loyally by his fealty. [2]
The fame of Samuel’s prowess reached even to the Magyars; and their king, Saint Stephen of
Hungary, sent to make an alliance with Bulgaria. Its terms were somewhat vague, but they were
sealed by a marriage-alliance; Stephen sent his daughter to wed Samuel’s son and heir, Gabriel-
Radomir. But the Hungarian girl was not as lucky in love as were her sisters-in-law. There was at
the court of Ochrida a slave called Irene, who had been captured as a child at the fall of Larissa,
a creature of marvellous beauty. The Princess, probably all too well endowed with the looks of
her father’s race, the race that gave its name to ogres, could never hope to rival the radiant Greek
captive. Gabriel-Radomir forgot his wife’s high lineage, that her father was a king and her
1. Presbyter Diocleae, pp. 294-5. Undated, but it probably was the cause of Basil’s formal
cession of the Adriatic to Venice (Dandolo, p. 227).
2. Ibid., loc. cit.
234
mother a princess of the Imperial blood of the West, and left her for the low-born Irene. Samuel,
always sympathetic to his children’s passions, condoned the desertion and recognized the
marriage with Irene—the Hungarian alliance was of very little value. Of the further fate of the
Princess, nothing is known. Deserted and divorced, in this wild Court far from her home, she
probably sought refuge in a convent. One son was born of her marriage, Peter Delean, who
probably died young; many years later, after the fall of his dynasty, he was impersonated by an
ambitious but unsuccessful rebel against the Emperor. [1] But while these love-dramas were still
incomplete, probably even before the Hungarian marriage, the Emperor Basil returned to the
field. In about 998 Samuel’s cause had seemed so flourishing that several of the European
nobility of the Empire contemplated deserting to his allegiance. Basil was informed, and arrested
two of them at Thessalonica, the Magister Paul Bobus and the Protospatharius Malacenus, and
deported them—the latter to Asia, the former to Constantinople; whereupon some of the
intending traitors at Adrianople, Vatatzes and Basil Glabas, fled at once to Samuel. Basil
imprisoned Glabas’s son for three years, but could take no other action. [2] It is probable that
Nicephorus Uranus continued to lead yearly expeditions against the Bulgarians, but we know
nothing of them. In the spring of 1001, however, Basil made peace on his eastern frontier and
was able to turn his full attention to the west. For four years he campaigned regularly in
Samuel’s dominions. [3]
The first of these campaigns, in 1001, was directed
1. Cedrenus, ii., p. 529: Prokič, pp. 31, 36.
2. Cedrenus, ii., pp. 451-a.
3. In Cedrenus (ii., p. 452) the first campaign is dated 999; but we know from Yachya (in Rosen,
p. 42), who is very reliable about eastern affairs, that Basil did not leave the east till 1001.
Cedrenus must therefore be two years out throughout these four years.
235
against Sofia. Making Philippopolis his starting-point— he left it strongly garrisoned under the
Patrician Theodorocanus—he marched through the Gates of Trajan, and captured many castles
round Sofia, though he did not attack the city itself, before retiring to winter at Mosynopolis, the
modern Gumuldjina, in south-western Thrace. The reason of this campaign was to cut Samuel
off from his eastern provinces; and so next year Basil sent a large army under Theodorocanus
and the Protospatharius Nicephorus Xiphias to conquer the districts between the Lower Danube
and the Black Sea, the old centre of Bulgaria. He himself probably waited near to Sofia, to
intercept any help that Samuel might send. The manoeuvre was successful; the former capitals,
Little Preslav, Pliska, and Great Preslav fell once more into the Emperor’s hands. [1]
In 1003 Basil struck in Macedonia. As his great armament approached Berrhoea, Dobromir, the
Bulgarian governor, took fright and surrendered without a struggle. Basil always attempted to
attach former Bulgarian commanders to the Empire by giving them titles, and sometimes posts in
provinces far enough away for them to be able to do no harm. Dobromir was honoured with the
dignity of Anthypatus and sent to Constantinople. From Berrhoea the Emperor attacked Serbia.
The town was defended by Niculitzes, the traitor that Samuel had spared at Larissa. Niculitzes
made a valiant resistance, but in the end the town was taken. Basil treated the defenders
leniently; despite Niculitzes’s past history, he was made a Patrician, and accompanied the
Emperor back to Constantinople, some time in the summer of 1003, when Basil thought it
advisable, after his recent successes, to pay a short visit to his capital.
But the fierce traitor could not be won by a title. After
236
a few days he escaped and made his way back to Samuel. Samuel, in the orthodox Bulgarian
fashion, had remained in the mountains during the Emperor’s invasion, resolutely avoiding any
pitched battle. On Basil’s departure he came down with his army, and with Niculitzes, attempted
to recover Serbia. But Basil was well informed, and moved swiftly. Forced marches brought him
back to the borders of Thessaly; and Samuel and Niculitzes fled. The latter was soon captured in
an ambush and sent to imprisonment in Constantinople. A few years later he escaped once more.
The Emperor spent the next month or two in Thessaly, rebuilding the castles that the Bulgarians
had destroyed and recapturing those that they still held. The Bulgarian garrisons were sent to
colonize the district of Volerus, where the Maritsa flows into the Aegean Sea. From Thessaly
Basil turned northward, to the great fortress of Vodena, placed on the edge of the high
Macedonian plateau, by where the river of Ostrovo falls in grand cascades into the valley below.
A Bulgarian called Draxan made a valiant defence, but in the end was forced to surrender,
probably in the late autumn. The garrison was sent to fill up the colony at Volerus, but Draxan
obtained permission to reside at Thessalonica. There he married the daughter of one of the chief
clergy that attended to the shrine of Saint Demetrius. His subsequent history was strange. After
two children had been born to his wife, he suddenly fled to the Bulgarian Court. He was soon
recaptured and pardoned, on his father-in-law’s intercession. But shortly afterwards he repeated
his flight, with the same result. He then waited in Thessalonica until two more children were
born: whereupon he fled once more. This time the Emperor’s patience was exhausted. When he
was recaptured, he was summarily impaled.
In 1004 Basil determined to complete the conquest of

237
Danubian Bulgaria, and very early in the year [1] set out to besiege Vidin, on the Danube, the
easternmost fortress left to Samuel. Against these well-organized and carefully led expeditions
Samuel could do nothing, but now he attempted a diversion that almost succeeded in forcing the
Emperor to raise the siege. On August 15, when the citizens of Adrianople were on holiday,
celebrating the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, the Bulgarians suddenly fell upon the city.
Adrianople was utterly taken by surprise; no one had ever expected Samuel to advance so far
from his centre. He massacred and destroyed without hindrance, and then retired as suddenly as
he had come, with a long train of prisoners and booty. But this brilliant foray was too late; Vidin,
after an eight months’ siege, was on the point of falling. Basil waited until he could storm the
city, probably early in September; then, garrisoning it strongly, he hastened southward to catch
the Bulgarians on their return. His march, up the Timok and the Morava, through hostile,
unconquered country, was as bold an achievement as Samuel’s to Adrianople.
The Emperor caught up the Tsar and his army near Skopie (Uskub), on the banks of the Vardar.
The river was in flood; and Samuel had not learnt his lesson sufficiently at the Spercheus. The
two armies encamped on either bank, the Imperial troops with due precaution, the Bulgarians
with an insolent carelessness, confident that the river could not be crossed. But a Greek soldier
found a ford that was passable; and the Emperor crept over secretly at the head of his troops. The
Bulgarians were too suddenly surprised to attempt to fight; they all hastily fled in confusion,
Samuel amidst them. The Tsar’s own
1. Probably in January, as Vidin fell after an eight months’ siege soon after the raid on
Adrianople. Basil, as Psellus tells us, thought nothing of campaigning in the depths of winter.
238
tent was captured, and the camp, with all the booty from Adrianople, fell into the Emperor’s
hands.
After the battle, the Bulgarian governor of Skopie came down to hand over the keys of his city to
the Emperor. It was Romanus, the eunuch son of Peter, last scion of the house of Krum. [1] Basil
received him gently and created him a Patrician. He finished his strange career as governor of
Abydos.
From Skopie Basil marched eastwards to attack the castle of Pernik, which commanded the
upper valley of the Struma. But Pernik was impregnably placed and magnificently defended by
the ablest of Samuel’s generals, Krakra. Basil, after losing many of his men, and finding Krakra
to be incorruptible, abandoned the siege and moved back, late in the winter of 1004, to his
headquarters at Philippopolis. Thence he soon returned to Constantinople. [2]
Thus in four years Samuel had lost half his Empire. From the Iron Gate of the Danube to
Thessalonica all the east of the Balkan peninsula was in the Emperor’s hands, except only for
Sofia and Strumitsa and a few castles around Pernik and Melnik in the western slopes of
Rhodope; and Imperial garrisons were stationed on the borders of Thessaly and along the River
Vardar. The campaign had been among the most glorious in the history of Byzantine arms; it had
shown that the Imperial troops, when they were ably led, were still the finest machine for
warfare that the world at that day knew; it had shown that the Bulgarians, for all their courage
and ardour, their ruses and their traps, were no match for them now. Samuel, like every great
Bulgar general, had avoided pitched battles, trusting to his speed and to
1. We hear now that he was also called Symeon, after his grandfather; but there is no reason to
suspect him of being any other son of Peter than the eunuch Romanus.
2. Cedrenus, ii., pp. 452-6, for the whole campaign.
239
ambushes and sudden descents; but now he had to face an adversary that could make forced
marches across the wildest enemy country and yet never now be caught unguarded in a valley or
a mountain-pass—an adversary, too that had rid himself of distractions, that had determined not
to cease from fighting till Bulgaria should be no more.
Even Samuel’s own followers were beginning to see the true state of things. In 998 Imperial
magistrates had broken their allegiance to pay homage to him, as the rising sun; but now, with
treacherous foresight, his own officials were beginning to transfer their services to the Emperor.
Every desertion was a heavy blow to him; it was on his governors and generals and the soldiers
that they commanded that his whole strength lay. The common people, it seems, were too poor
or too indifferent or, as Bogomils, too conscientiously passive, to help or to hinder his cause. [1]
Samuel, though as yet no foreign army had reached the high lakes where he held his Court,
might well feel apprehensive of the future.
In 1005 the canker of treachery entered into the heart of his family. His daughter Miroslava and
her husband, Ashot the Taronite, fled from Dyrrhachium, where he held a command, to
Constantinople. Ashot had long yearned to return to his former home, and had persuaded the
Princess that a wife’s duty ranked before a daughter’s. But Miroslava was not the only traitor in
the family. Ashot brought with him to the Emperor a letter from the Tsar’s own father-in-law,
John Chryselius, who was left in charge of the fortress. John offered to hand Dyrrhachium over
to Imperial troops in return for money for himself and the title of Patrician for both his sons. The
1. The whole internal history of Samuel’s reign is so unknown that even such generalizations
must be qualified. It seems, however, that Samuel never became nor has become a popular
national hero, as Symeon did: though Symeon did infinitely more harm to his country.
240
offer was accepted; and the Patrician Eustathius Daphnomelas took a fleet to the Adriatic and
received back the city. Ashot was made a Magister, and Miroslava a Girdled Patrician, becoming
thus one of the greatest ladies at the Imperial Court. [1]
The loss of Dyrrhachium hit Samuel hard, both in his affections and his power. He had no outlet
now to the western sea, save through Dioclea, the territory of his faithful son-in-law, Vladimir.
The story of the next nine years is lost in obscurity. From 1006 onwards it seems that the
Emperor Basil yearly invaded Bulgaria [2]; and in 1009 there was a battle at a village called
Creta, probably somewhere near Thessalonica, where he heavily defeated Samuel. [3] All
through these years the Imperial troops were pressing nearer and nearer to the centre of the
Tsar’s dominions. Only the mountains of Upper Macedonia and Albania remained in Samuel’s
hands, and the valley of the Upper Struma, where Krakra held out. It was probably from Krakra
that Samuel learnt that the Emperor journeyed each year on his way to the war through the
narrow pass of Cimbalongus, or Clidion, that led from Seres into the upper valley of the Struma.
Samuel conceived the plan of occupying this pass, and thus either checking the Emperor on his
way or forcing him to make a détour that would leave
1. Cedrenus, ii., p. 451. He tells of it out of its place, after talking of Ashot’s capture and
marriage. The date, however, is supplied by Lupus Protospatharius, writing at Bari, just across
the sea (ad. ann. 1005, p. 41). The Theodore whom he mentions as having carried out the
transaction was no doubt a son of the aged John Chryselius. It is uncertain who really
commanded Dyrrhachium. It seems unlikely that John was placed under his foreign grandson-in-
law, though Cedrenus implies so, merely calling Ghryselius one of the chief magistrates, though
in Bishop Michael’s MS. of Scylitzes he is ‘ πρωτεύων. ’ Probably he was retired, as he must
have been old.
2. Cedrenus, ii., p. 457, says Basil invaded the country yearly. Matthew of Edessa (p. 37) talks of
Basil inaugurating a long war against the Bulgars in 1006.
3. Reported in the life of Saint Nicon Metanoeite (Vasilievski, op. cit., loc. cit.). See Zlatarski
(op. cit., pp. 849-50).
241
the enemy strongly entrenched in his rear. In 1014 Samuel carried out his scheme, and took
possession of the pass, fortifying its entrance with wooden palisades. Meanwhile he sent other
troops, under Nestoritsa, to create a diversion near Thessalonica. But Nestoritsa was routed by
the Imperial strategus, Theophylact Boteniates, who then was able to join the Emperor’s army as
it approached Cimbalongus.
At the sight of the strong Bulgarian palisades, Basil hesitated, and, after a few futile attacks, was
in despair. But his lieutenant, the strategus of Philippopolis, the general Nicephorus Xiphias,
suggested taking a detachment over the forest-covered mountainside and attacking Samuel in the
rear; he thought that it was just feasible. Basil agreed, and Xiphias set out through the forest of
Balathistes (the Sultanina Planina of to-day), and at last managed to arrive behind the Bulgarian
army. On July 29 Basil made a grand onslaught on the palisades. At the same moment Xiphias
fell unexpectedly on Samuel’s rear. The Bulgarians were taken by surprise and caught. Many
were slain, and many more were captured. Samuel himself was only saved by the endurance and
the bravery of his son, and fled away to his fortress of Prilep. The captives numbered fourteen or
fifteen thousand. Basil, whose clemency had come to an end, determined to teach the Tsar a
bitter lesson. All the captives were deprived of their sight, save for one in every hundred, who
had one eye left to him. Then, with these one-eyed men to guide them, they were set free to
grope their way back to their master. [1]
Meanwhile Basil turned to the north, to clean up the districts of Western Rhodope, where Krakra
valiantly
1. Cedrenus, ii., pp. 457, 459. He numbers the prisoners at 15,000; Cecaumenus (Strategicon, p.
18) numbering the prisoners at 14,000. Michael Attaliates (p. 229) also refers to the battle.
242
held out. He advanced to Strumitsa, and captured the neighbouring castle of Matrucium. Thence
he sent Boteniates with some troops to burn the palisades that the Bulgarians had thrown across
the road to Thessalonica. Boteniates performed his task successfully, but on his return fell into a
Bulgarian ambush, where he perished with all his men. This victory heartened the Bulgarians,
but it was of little avail. The Emperor continued in the district—one of the many called Zagoria,
‘across the mountains’—and even its strongest fortress, the impregnable castle of Melnik,
surrendered itself to him. After its capture he retired for a while to Mosynopolis; and there, on
the 24th of October, joyful news reached the Imperial camp. [1]
The blind victims of Cimbalongus at last found their way back to the Tsar. Samuel was at
Prespa, ill with anxiety and fear. The ghastly procession of his former grand army was too much
for him. He fell to the ground in an apoplectic fit. A glass of cold water brought him to his senses
for a moment, but he passed again into unconsciousness, and two days later, on October 6, 1014,
he died. [2]
It was the end now. The last red streak of sunset had shone on Bulgaria in the defiles of
Cimbalongus. Now it was twilight, and dim figures hurried to and fro to ward off the inevitable
darkness. Nine days after Samuel’s death, his son Gabriel-Radomir, whom the Greeks called
Gabriel-Romanus, was proclaimed Tsar; he had probably been away with the army at the time of
his father’s death, and it took him some time to reach the Court. Gabriel-Radomir, for all his
valour and his magnificent physique, had none of his father’s greatness. He could command
2. Ibid., ii., p. 458. The date of the death is given in Bishop Michael’s MS. (Prokič, p. 30). Lupus
Protospatharius refers to it (p. 41, ad ann. 1015).
243
none of the same awe and respect; and almost at once his throne began to totter. [1]
On the news of the great Tsar’s death, Basil at once recommenced his campaign. Leaving
Mosynopolis, he marched to the valley of the Cherna, as far as the great town of Bitolia
(Monastir) where Gabriel-Radomir had a palace. The destruction of this palace was the only act
of violence that the Emperor now committed. From Bitolia Basil turned back—to advance on
higher in the depths of winter would be unwise—and he descended the Cherna, while his troops
captured Prilep and Shchip (Ishtip, Stypeum). Thence he returned by way of Vodena to
Thessalonica, where he arrived on January 9, 1015.
At the beginning of spring he set out again. Through treachery the Bulgarians had recovered
Vodena; so Basil at once flung his whole army at it and terrorized it into submission. Again its
garrison was transported to the colony at Volerus, while, to keep it securely in his hands, he built
two castles to over-awe it, one called Cardia, the other Saint Elias. He then went back to
Thessalonica. As he sojourned there, a Greek soldier called Chirotmetus (as he had lost one
hand) came to the Emperor with a letter from the Tsar promising his submission. But Basil
feared a ruse, and dismissed Chirotmetus without an answer. Instead he sent his army under
Nicephorus Xiphias and Constantine Diogenes to besiege the city of Moglena, one of the
strongest cities left to the Bulgarians in Macedonia. Moglena was under the command of the
local governor, Elitzes, and the Kavkan Dometian, one of the Tsar’s most intimate counsellors.
So firmly was
1. Cedrenus, ii., p. 458–9. He says that Gabriel-Radomir was proclaimed on Sept. 15, Ind. xiii.,
i.e. Sept. 15, 1015; but that must be a mistake for Oct. 15, Ind. xiii., i.e. Oct. 15, 1014. This date
fits with Oct. 6 as the date of Samuel’s death, and Oct. 24 as the date when Basil heard the news.
Cedrenus is wrong here about the slave girl of Larissa. As Michael’s MS. shows (see above, p.
234), she was Gabriel-Radomir’s wife, not Samuel’s.
244
the fortress defended that Basil himself had to come and conduct operations. It was only when he
had diverted the river that surrounded the city and undermined its walls that the garrison was
driven to surrender. The Emperor deported them far away, to the borders of Armenia; the city
was destroyed and burnt, and the same fate befell the neighbouring castle of Enotia. [1]
Five days after the fall of Moglena, in August 1016, Chirotmetus again appeared at the
Emperor’s camp, this time with a more sensational story. The Tsar Gabriel-Radomir had been
murdered while out hunting at the village of Petrisk on the Lake of Ostrovo, by his cousin,
Prince John-Vladislav, Aaron’s son, whose life he once had saved [2]; and John-Vladislav was
master of the remnant of Bulgaria. With Gabriel-Radomir had perished his wife, the lovely Irene
of Larissa. [3] Chirotmetus brought with him various servants of the new Tsar and letters
offering submission. Basil was at first half convinced, but about the same time another kavkan,
the brother of the Kavkan Dometian, joined the Emperor, by whom he was well received; and
probably he explained the duplicity of the letters. Basil at once set out for the enemy country,
and moved up into the Macedonian highlands, past Ostrovo and Sosk, blinding every Bulgarian
that he captured. [4]
1. Cedrenus, ii., pp. 461—2.
2. Ibid., ii., pp. 459, 462. Petriscus is not Petrich in the Struma valley; there is a fifteenth-century
MS. at Rila in praise of Saint Demetrius which gives a full account of the death, and makes it
occur at Sosk (Zlatarski, op. cit., pp. 850-2). No doubt the Tsar was residing at Sosk, but hunting
in the neighbourhood of the village of Petrisk on Lake Ostrovo, where the murder occurred.
Yachya (in Rosen, pp. 58—9) has a confused account where he gives the protagonists their
fathers’ names. The date must be c. Aug. 1015, as Gabriel-Radomir reigned for less than a year.
3. Ibid., p. 469.
4. Ibid., ii., p. 462. Presbyter Diocleae, p. 295, referring to the murder, says that it was due to
Basil’s intriguing. The account in Scylitzes seems definitely to contradict this; the priest
probably had heard of the subsequent negotiations, though there was certainly a good deal of
treachery at the Bulgarian Court.
245
Gabriel-Radomir’s death threw the country into further disorder. John-Vladislav was a usurper,
probably little more than a party leader; and in the chaos every Bulgarian general began to
consider his own interests. But John-Vladislav had a considerable ruthless energy. He retired to
the north-west before the Emperor, into the Albanian mountains, to rally his forces. There he
summoned Vladimir of Dioclea as his vassal to consult with him; he probably wished to secure a
safe retreat there, and was angry that Vladimir’s gentle nature inclined towards peace with the
Emperor. The good prince wished to go, but his wife, Kosara, Samuel’s daughter, distrusted her
brother’s murderer, and, fearing for her husband’s life, determined to go in his stead. John-
Vladislav received Kosara with such cordiality that at last, on a safe-conduct guaranteed by
David, [1] the Bulgarian Patriarch, Vladimir set out to the Tsar’s Court. When he arrived he was
summarily beheaded, on May 22, 1016, and his body was denied burial, till it performed so
many miracles that even his murderer was impressed. Kosara received permission to bury it at
Kraina, by Lake Scutari; and she herself, broken-hearted, took the veil in a convent close by. [2]
The murder removed the danger of treachery in the rear, but otherwise it did little save to add to
the general disorder. The Bulgarians soon lost their hold over Dioclea.
Meanwhile the Emperor had penetrated far into the heart of the Macedonian mountains, into that
mysterious land of high lakes and valleys where Samuel had held his Court. In the early autumn
of 1015 he reached Ochrida, the capital. But barely had he occupied the city when he
1. The Patriarch David, who features several times in Cedrenus (see below, passim), is not
mentioned in Ducange’s list, but he is almost certainly the same as John, who succeeded Philip
(see above, p. 219). In Michael of Devol’s MS. he is called John, both here and when he
subsequently appears (Prokič, op. cit., pp. 32, 33, also his Jovan Skilitsa, p. 146).
2. Cedrenus, ii., p. 463: Presbyter Diocleae, pp. 295–6, giving date May 22. The year must be
1016.
246
heard that John-Vladislav was attacking Dyrrhachium. At once Basil left a garrison in Ochrida
and marched down to save the great seaport. But there worse news arrived. On his march to
Ochrida he had left the Strategus George Gonitziates, and the Protospatharius Orestes, with a
considerable army, to remain in the foothills guarding the road to the mountains. But George had
been led into an ambush by the Bulgarian general, Ivatsa, a soldier of notorious brilliance, and
had been butchered at the head of all his army. Basil was forced to leave Dyrrhachium to its
fate—a fate which, however, was averted—and hurried across the mountains in pursuit of Ivatsa,
to reopen the road. But Ivatsa avoided his path and retired to the south; he managed, however, to
recover Ochrida for the Tsar, and to re-establish the Court there. The Emperor returned to
Thessalonica and thence to Mosynopolis. There he divided his forces into two portions; one he
sent under David Arianites to attack Strumitsa, the other under Xiphias against Sofia. Arianites
succeeded in capturing a fort near Strumitsa called Thermitsa, and Xiphias various castles near
Sofia, including Boyana. The Emperor himself went to Constantinople, where he arrived in
January 1016.
Later in the year Basil returned to the field, and himself led an expedition against the Bulgarian
districts of the Upper Struma. The centre of resistance was Pernik, where the brave and loyal
Krakra—he was loyal to each Tsar in succession—still held out. Once again Basil attempted to
storm the stronghold; and once again his attempts cost him so many men that he gave up the
siege. As autumn came on he turned south, to winter and to refresh his men at Mosynopolis.
In the first fine days of 1017 the old Emperor took the field again. He sent David Arianites and
Constantine Diogenes to raid on the Upper Vardar; he himself took
247
the castle of Longus. [1] The Imperial armies captured vast numbers of men and herds of cattle
and sheep—the chief wealth of the country. The prisoners were divided into three portions; one
was shared by Imperial troops, one went to the Russian auxiliaries—the beginnings of the
famous Varangian Guard—and the third to the Emperor himself. From Longus, Basil moved
southward to besiege Castoria. But as he lay before its strong walls he received a letter from the
Strategus of Dristra, to announce that John-Vladislav and his viceroy in Rhodope, Krakra, were
attempting to negotiate with the Petchenegs, who roamed in strength beyond the Danube. Basil
took no risks. At once he lifted the siege and hastened northward to be at hand should anything
occur. As he passed by, he stormed and burnt the castle of Bosograd or Vishegrad, [2] and
ordered the ruined walls of Berrhoea to be rebuilt, and then, coming up to Ostrovo and Moliscus,
[3] destroyed every Bulgarian castle that he found still standing. When he arrived there he heard
that the Tsar’s alliance with the Petchenegs had failed; the Petchenegs would not risk arousing
the enmity of the terrible old Emperor.
Basil returned southward again, and captured the town of Setaena (the present village of Setina
on the Brod, on the edge of the valley of the Cherna). Samuel had had a palace there; and Basil
found great stores of provisions. The palace was burnt and the food distributed to the troops. The
Tsar and his army came hurrying to the neighbourhood, to see what might be done: whereupon
Basil sent out to find him Constantine Diogenes and the troops of the European themes. But
Constantine fell into a trap laid by John-Vladislav, and was on the point of perishing, when
Basil, who somehow had heard of it and
1. Its position is unknown—probably not far to the north of Castoria.
2. Probably not far to the north of Gastoria.
3. Presumably near Ostrovo.
248
was anxious, suddenly rode up with a picked band of soldiers and joined in the battle. The
Bulgarians, well-nigh victorious, were aghast: ‘Fly, fly ! The Emperor !’ [1] they cried, and all
followed that advice. In the rout, many were left dead on the field; two hundred fully armed
horsemen were captured, with all the baggage of the Tsar and his nephew.
After this victory Basil moved to Vodena and strengthened its garrison; then, in January 1018, he
returned to his capital. [2]
Every season the Emperor was more firmly established in Bulgaria; but John-Vladislav, in his
restless energy, did not despair. No sooner had Basil left the field, than he came down from the
mountains to attack with all his remaining strength the city of Dyrrhachium. It was his last effort.
As he fought before the walls a warrior attacked him, in whom he suddenly thought that he
recognized Vladimir of Dioclea, the saint that he had murdered. In a mad frenzy he cried for
help, but none could reach him. And so the unknown warrior, were he a spectre, or some casual
Greek, or even a Bulgarian traitor, struck the Tsar dead. [3]
His death meant the end of Bulgaria. His sons were young and inexperienced, and even the most
fervent Bulgarian leaders began to see that further resistance was hopeless. The Emperor, on the
news, set out from Constantinople. As he journeyed across the peninsula, various of his old
opponents came to make their peace. At Adrianople he met the son and the brother of Krakra,
who brought him news of the great general’s submission and the surrender of his impregnable
fortress Pernik. Basil
1. ‘Βεξεῖτε, ὸ Τσαῖσαρ,’ i.e. Begaite, Tsesar—fly, the Tsar.
2. Cedrenus, ii., pp. 462—8. Who the nephew of the Tsar was, we do not know.
3. Ibid., pp. 466-7: Presbyter Diocleae, p. 266, giving the miraculous intervention of Vladimir.
249
received them kindly and gave them high Imperial dignities; Krakra was created a Patrician. At
Mosynopolis, legates came from Bitolia, Morovizd, and Liplyan, [1] handing over the keys of
their towns. At Seres, Krakra himself joined the Emperor, with the commanders of the thirty-five
castles that he had held; he was shortly followed by Dragomuzh, the governor of Strumitsa.
Dragomuzh brought with him John the Chaldee, who had been captured by Samuel twenty-two
years before, when the Taronites were routed. The Emperor made Dragomuzh a Patrician, and
moved towards Strumitsa. As he approached the city a new embassy came up to him, headed by
David, the Patriarch of Bulgaria.
On John-Vladislav’s death, his widow Maria took over the government, and at the Patriarch’s
advice decided to surrender, on a few conditions as to her family’s safety. Her eldest son Prusian
and two of his brothers objected to this policy, and left Ochrida for the mountains; but the bulk
of her Court agreed with her. David was now bearing her letters to the Emperor. At the same
time a high official called Bogdan arrived; he was commander of the ‘inner castles,’ and had
favoured the Imperial cause to the extent of slaying his warlike son-in-law. As a reward he
became a Patrician.
From Strumitsa Basil crossed to Skopie, where he stationed David Arianites with a strong
garrison. He himself, in a triumphant progress, moved back to Shchip, and thence to Prosek on
the Vardar, and passed on southward and then westward, and so up to Ochrida. At the city gates
the Tsaritsa herself met the Emperor, bringing with her all the royal family that was at the
Court—three of her sons and her six daughters, a bastard son of Samuel,
1. Bitolia is called here Pelagonia, after the district of which it was chief town. The other towns,
‘Morobisdus’ and ‘Lipenius,’ were situated close by Bitolia.
250
and the two daughters of Gabriel-Radomir and his five sons, one of whom had been blinded.
Basil received them kindly and accepted their submission. He found there too the treasury of the
Tsars, which he had not had time to open during his former brief occupation. It was filled with
golden pieces, and garments sown with gold and golden diadems set with pearls. The money, to
the extent of a hundred centenaria, he divided amongst his troops. Then, leaving the city well
garrisoned under Eustathius Daphnomelus, he set out southward. More Bulgarians joined his
camp—Nestoritsa and the younger Dobromir, with all their men. Even Prusian and his brothers,
the Tsaritsa’s elder sons, came down from the wild slopes of Mount Tomor, whither Basil had
sent to pursue them, and threw themselves on his mercy. Basil received them at Prespa. Prusian
he created Magister, the others Patricians. It was now the middle of August.
At Prespa Basil received another distinguished, but less willing supplicant. The general Ivatsa
had been living in proud independence in his castle on the Devol, surrounded with fair gardens.
For nearly two months the Emperor had been negotiating with him, seeking his bloodless
submission; but Ivatsa had grandiose ambitions to be Tsar and was only playing for time. In
August Ivatsa, as he had always done, invited his friends and relatives to celebrate with him the
Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin. As the negotiations were still being carried on, Eustathius
Daphnomelus asked to be allowed to come too. Ivatsa was surprised, but delighted, that an
enemy should place himself in his hands, and welcomed Eustathius with outward cordiality.
After the feast was over, Eustathius demanded a private interview with Ivatsa. It was held in a
distant orchard, for secrecy’s sake. There, when they were alone, the Greek suddenly
overpowered the Bulgarian, and gagged him and put out his eyes. Two
251
servants of Ivatsa heard his first smothered cries and summoned the company. The Bulgarians
rushed up, enraged at this abuse of hospitality against their friend. But Eustathius waited for
them calmly, and as they approached harangued them for their folly in opposing the Empire. His
words and his confidence impressed them, and they realized their ultimate impotence against the
mighty Emperor. Prudently they bowed to fate and accompanied Eustathius and the blind Ivatsa
back to the Emperor at Prespa. As a reward Eustathius was made Strategus of Dyrrhachium and
given all Ivatsa’s possessions.
At the same time Niculitzes, the traitor of Larissa, who had been hiding in the mountains and
now found himself deserted by his followers, wearily gave himself up one night into the
Emperor’s hands. Basil, however, would not see him, but sent him to a prison in Thessalonica.
From Prespa Basil made a détour, to arrange things in Dyrrhachium, Colonea, and Dryinopolis in
Epirus, and then came to Castoria. There he found two daughters of Tsar Samuel, who were
brought to his camp. When they saw there the Tsaritsa Maria, their rage knew no bounds. It was
with difficulty that they were kept from doing her serious bodily harm. To relieve himself from
further distressing scenes of this type, Basil sent the captive royal family to Constantinople. The
Tsaritsa was appointed, as the Princess Kosara had been, a Girdled Patrician. The Emperor
himself journeyed southward, his work over, to visit his province of Hellas. As he passed
through Thessaly he saw the bones of the Bulgarians bleaching on the banks of the Spercheus,
where Uranus had slain them in their thousands, and he marvelled at the great fortifications built
after that battle to guard the narrows of Thermopylae; and then he came through Boeotia to the
glorious city of Athens. [1]
1. Cedrenus, ii., pp. 470–6.

252
Meanwhile Xiphias received the homage of the remaining free Bulgarians. He strengthened the
garrisons of Serbia and Sosk, and as he waited at Stagi in Thessaly, the last of the unconquered
generals, Elemagus of Berat (Belograd) made his submission. Bulgarian independence was dead,
save only in the distant north, where Sermon, governor of Sirmium, established himself for a few
months longer as an independent prince, even striking his own coins. But in 1019 Constantine
Diogenes extinguished this last flicker [1]; and even the princes of Serbia and Croatia hastened
to announce their vassaldom. [2]
The Emperor Basil saw his life-work finished. All his reign, for more than forty years, he had
striven to destroy the Empire of the Bulgarians. At last it was done, and he would be famous
throughout the coming ages as Bulgaroctonus, the Bulgar-Slayer. Here in Athens, in the Church
of the Mother of God, he rendered up his thanks to his Creator—in the church known, in an
earlier Virgin’s honour, as the Parthenon. [3]
1. Cedrenus, ii., p. 477. For Sermon’s coins see Schlumberger (op. cit., p. 417)·
2. Ibid., p. 476: Lucius, p. 297.
3.Cedrenus, loc. cit.
Epilogue
The Bulgarian Empire was ended. Worn out by its weakness within and by the everlasting, ever-
reviving strength of Imperial Rome, it had finally succumbed; and for nearly 170 years Bulgaria
would be numbered among the Imperial provinces. Of its history during those years we know
little, nor does it concern us here. The Emperor Basil, with the wise moderation that
characterized the great statesmen of Byzantium, who preferred when they could to respect local
customs and institutions, made few changes that would affect the common Bulgarian people. The
country was divided into two themes, Bulgaria and Paristrium. The former contained the bulk of
Samuel’s empire, the latter the Danubian province and the older capitals; probably the former
frontier fortresses, such as Philippopolis, had already been included in existing Imperial themes.
The governor of the Bulgarian theme enjoyed the title of Pronoëtes and was apparently one of
the governors who found their salaries out of the local taxes. Basil, however, ordained that
Samuel’s system of taxation—payment in kind—should be maintained; and, though later
governors were to provoke revolt by attempting to alter the system, it actually endured
throughout the period of Imperial rule. With regard to the Church, Bulgaria was granted by Basil
concessions unknown in any other of his provinces. The whole ecclesiastical organization was
revised, and the patriarchate abolished. But the Archbishop of Bulgaria, installed at Ochrida in
the Patriarch’s place, only owed a faint allegiance to the Patriarch of Constantinople; and the
thirty Bulgarian bishops and the 685 ecclesiastics obeyed him alone. We do not know how far
these thirty
255
256
bishoprics instituted by Basil corresponded with the old bishoprics of the Bulgarian Empire; but
their seats had all been Bulgarian towns in Samuel’s heyday. Basil so far relied on the loyalty of
the Bulgarian Church to the new Government that in several dioceses he increased its
jurisdiction at the expense of the dioceses of former Imperial provinces, no doubt in districts
chiefly inhabited by Slavs, who would appreciate the Slavonic liturgy. How far he proposed
controlling the Church himself, or through the Patriarch of Constantinople, we do not know. He
kept on the Bulgarian Patriarch David as Archbishop of Bulgaria; but on David’s death the
Imperial Government adopted the custom of appointing Greeks to the Archbishopric—save once
when they appointed a converted Jew—thus keeping the whole fabric in close connection with
Constantinople. Among the Archbishops thus appointed was Theophylact of Euboea, who
occupied his time in that wild country in writing the lives of its martyrs and of its great saint,
Clement. [1]
Bulgaria, on the whole, acquiesced in its annexation. The aristocracy, worn out by its resistance,
was glad to sink into the luxurious service of the Empire. The merchant classes, such as they
were, welcomed peace. Those of the peasantry that held political views were almost all of the
Bogomil heresy, equally but passively opposed to all Governments. Twice during the next sixty
years the misgovernment of Imperial officials was to provoke the Bulgarians into serious revolt;
but both rebellions were soon put down; and, so long as the Government remained competent,
Bulgaria was content to rest in peace: till, at the close of the twelfth century, the whole Empire
fell into
1. The ecclesiastical settlement is given in Basil’s ordinances, published by Gelzer, in vol i., pp.
245 ff., and vol. ii., pp. 2 ff. of the Byzantinische Zeitschrift. The best complete account of the
reorganization of Bulgaria under Basil is given in Schlumberger’s Epopée Byzantine, vol. ii., pp.
418-32, where the meagre information is fully summarized and discussed.
257
chaos under the rule of the feeble house of Angelus, with Western Europe stabbing it in the back.
As for the actors of the final scenes, the princes and princesses of Bulgaria and the great
generals, they were merged into the functionaries of Byzantium. They walked before the
Emperor on his triumphal entry into Constantinople; then the men were given Imperial posts and
titles and the women husbands from among the aristocracy. Of the fate of Tsar Samuel’s few
surviving descendants nothing is told; but many of John-Vladislav’s family enjoyed a certain
eminence. Of his sons, Prusian, the eldest, created a Magister on his surrender, became the
strategus of the important Bucellarian theme, till he quarrelled with his colleagues so badly that
he had to be exiled. Aaron, as Catepan of Vaspurakan, later played a prominent part in the
Armenian campaigns of the Empire. Of Trajan, Radomir, and the youngest son of all we have no
information; but Alusian, the second son, after being made a Patrician (on his surrender to Basil)
and, later, strategus of the theme of Theodosiopolis, involved himself disgracefully in the
Bulgarian rebellion of 1048—the rebellion kindled by an impostor who claimed to be Peter
Delean, son of Tsar Gabriel-Radomir and the Princess of Hungary. Alusian first betrayed the
Emperor for him, and then betrayed him to the Emperor. Of John-Vladislav’s six daughters, one
married Romanus Curcuas, who was involved in Prusian’s quarrels and was blinded; another, the
Princess Catherine, sat for a while on the Imperial throne itself, as the wife of the nervous
Emperor, Isaac Comnenus. Of the next generation, Alusian’s son, the Vestarch Samuel-Alusian,
fought with distinction in the desperate Manzikert campaign of Romanus Diogenes, while his
daughter was the first wife of that unhappy Emperor. Aaron’s son, Theodore, became strategus
of the theme of Taron in Armenia; while Trajan’s daughter,
258
Maria, married Andronicus Ducas. One of their daughters, Irene Ducaena, became the wife of
the Emperor Alexius Comnenus and the ancestress of that great dynasty. And so, after long
journeying, through the Angeli and the Hohenstaufen and the houses of Castile, of Hapsburg and
of Bourbon, the blood of the last Tsar of the first Bulgarian Empire flows in the veins of the first
Tsar of modern Bulgaria and his present successor. [1]
The First Bulgarian Empire was ended. Its end was not inevitable nor foredoomed—unless it be
that everything is foredoomed. But history is so full of accidents improvised by a whimsical
providence that it is idle to explore the roads of what might have been. Nevertheless, the First
Bulgarian Empire was planned by fate in its grandest, most sweeping scale. There is the small
beginning, the nomads entering the Balkan peninsula, and gradually, by the ability of the Khans
of the House of Dulo, establishing themselves there with increasing strength: so that even the
chaos and disasters that followed the dynasty’s extinction could not remove them thence. Then
we come to Kardam and the swift revival, and the greatness of Krum and his successors, when
Bulgaria was numbered among the great Powers of Europe, and wooed and feared by the East
and the West, and so to Boris, the Christian Prince, the greatest of them all, who outwitted
1. The fate of John-Vladislav’s descendants can be found in various passages of Cedrenus—ii.,

pp. 469, 483, 487, 497 (for Prusian), 469, 470, 531 (Alusian), 469, 573-4 (Aaron), 469—and
Prokič—pp. 34 (Trajan and Radomir), 678 (Samuel-Alusian), 483 (the wife of Romanus
Curcuas), 628, 650 (the Empress Catherine). Psellus, p. 63-4, calls Alusian brother, not son, of
John-Vladislav, but we know that John had no surviving brothers. Bryennius (p. 19) calls
Catherine Samuel’s daughter, but dates make it unlikely, and Cedrenus provides circumstantial
evidence. See also Prokič, p. 36. Bryennius also (pp. 106-7) tells of Trajan’s daughter Maria’s
marriage, calling Trajan Samuel’s son. But Prokič, p. 34, shows this to be wrong. Bryennius
probably had only heard of Samuel, and not of John-Vladislav. Aaron’s son, Theodore, is
identified by evidence given in Skabalonovitch, Vizantinskoe Gosudarstvo, p. 198. Attaliates (p.
123) mentions Samuel-Alusian.
259
the Pope and used the Patriarch to secure his country the Church that he desired. After Boris was
Symeon and the summit. For Symeon was the hero of a Greek tragedy, too prosperous, too
triumphant, too defiant of Nemesis, wearing out Bulgaria with too many victories and dying in
disappointment. The curve swerves downward, in the long afternoon of Peter’s reign: while Pope
Bogomil gave form to the discontent of a disillusioned people. The first shadows of evening
were terrible amid the Russian storms; but the sunset was lit with splendour before the night
came at last. But the tragedy is not perfect. Bulgaria did not bear within herself all the seeds of
her decline and fall. Bulgarian history must always be read with Constantinople in sight. It was
Byzantium, the Empire, that decided its destiny. The Bulgars had come into the Balkans at a time
when the Empire was weak, when the Roman world was still shaken by the first sudden blows of
Islam; and they had established themselves there before the Empire had recovered. But since the
middle of the eighth century the Empire had gradually been growing in power though the growth
had been veiled by the development of Bulgaria and by periodical setbacks, usually more
spectacular than really disastrous. It was at the climax of Symeon’s career and of the whole
Bulgarian Empire, at Symeon’s interview with Romanus Lecapenus, that the truth was revealed.
The Emperor, for all his armies’ defeats, was the victor. After that, the end was as inevitable as
anything in this world can be; and, though much blood was shed before Bulgaria was
extinguished, the length of the struggle was due rather to Samuel’s genius and Imperial
dissensions than to uncertainty as to the ultimate result.
Nor need Bulgaria stand ashamed. It is a tribute rather to the greatness of her rulers that they
could, as no other invaders had been able to do, build up a nation at the
260
very gates of the mightiest empire of Christendom. Not only was Byzantium supreme amongst
her neighbours in material wealth and organization, but, as the heir of Rome, she held unbroken
the conception and prestige of the Universal Empire; and her civilization was the highest of its
hemisphere. Sooner or later she would surely absorb the close inhabitants of the Balkan
peninsula, for all that a line of brilliant Khans had knit together Slav and Bulgar and all the
remnants of races that lingered there into a nation. At times, indeed, great monarchs, lured by the
siren call of Constantinople, would attempt to make the absorption of their doing, but in vain—
and fortunately so; for that would be the wrong way round, as was proved by the greatest crime
in history, the Crusaders’ sack of the Christian city in the year 1204.
And, indeed, the absorption was no bad thing for Bulgaria; for it did not happen too soon. The
Bulgarian monarchs had had time to instil into their country a consciousness that was strong
enough to survive. In the meantime, peace and the penetration of the Imperial civilization came
as a boon to the weary country and taught the Bulgarians more than they could have learnt in a
long struggle for independence. But now they had their memories and, still more, their Slavonic
Church to remind them who they were; and not all Pope Bogomil’s teachings and his followers
ever broke that down. And so, when the time came, and the Empire no longer was wise and
beneficial, Bulgaria was ready to assemble again round an independent standard raised by the
noble House of Asen at Tirnovo.
So it had been worth while—and worth while, too, to countries outside of Bulgaria. The Bulgars
had brought order to the Slavs and had lifted them out of chaos, setting an example for the whole
Slav world to follow. The Serbian tribes could profit by it; and, moreover, had not
261
Bulgaria lain between, they might never so have freed themselves from the influence of
Constantinople, to form a proud nation, until it was too late: while, similarly, the same bulwark
preserved the Empire from many harmful barbarous invasions. But the great gift of Bulgaria to
Europe lay in her readiness to take over the legacy of Cyril and Methodius, so carelessly thrown
away by the Moravians. This work had been initiated in Constantinople and greatly helped by
the Patriarch Protius and the Emperor Basil, with that strange mixture of philanthropy and
political cunning that characterized Byzantium. But it was Boris of Bulgaria that brought it to
completion, and thus put all the Balkan peninsula and all the Russias into his debt. To his lead
those countries owe their Churches, Churches well suited to them—Churches that kept their
pride alive through all the dark days that they were to endure, at the hands of fierce and infidel
barbarian invaders.
Though clouds pass at times over the face of Bulgaria, she may well be content with her history.
The First Empire has left her memories rich in glory. It is a splendid procession that stretches
backward into the far-off darkness, past Samuel and his passionate Court beside the high
mountain-lakes of Macedonia; past Symeon on his golden throne, his silken raiment weighed
down with studded pearls; past Boris, issuing from his aureoled palace with angels to escort him;
past Krum, with bowing rows of concubines, crying ‘Sdravitsa’ to his boyars as he drank from
an Emperor’s skull; past Tervel, riding in to Constantinople by the side of a slit-nosed Emperor;
past Asperuch and his brothers, and his father, King Kubrat, and past the princes of the Huns,
back through dim ages to that wild marriage from which her race was born, the marriage of the
wandering Scythian witches to the demons of the sands of Turkestan.
Appendices
Appendix I
Original sources for early Bulgarian history

The original sources for a history of the First Bulgarian Empire do not, on the whole, present any
great problems, except for their paucity, which obliges us to remember that we have only a one-
sided account of almost every event, and that we must therefore use them cautiously, ready to
discount prejudice and ignorance wherever our judgement raises our suspicions. The main
sources are provided by the writers, chroniclers, hagiographers, and letter-writers of
Constantinople and the Empire, writing for the most part (and after the seventh century entirely)
in Greek. Indeed, with the one important exception of the Bulgarian Princes’ List, which I
discuss in Appendix II, we are absolutely dependent on them until the ninth century. For the pre-
Balkan history of the Bulgars we have occasional references in the rich crop of histories written
during or shortly after the reign of Justinian I, such as those of Procopius, Agathias, Menander,
Malalas, &c. As regards Bulgarian history these need no comment; the other problems that they
raise are admirably summarized in Bury’s Appendix I to the fourth volume of his edition of
Gibbon’s Decline and Fall. From the middle of the seventh century onward till the ninth, we are
almost entirely reduced to two Greek histories, those written by the Patriarch Nicephorus and
Saint Theophanes, who both wrote in the early ninth century. For this period both seem to have
used the same source or sources, now lost to us. This is the more unfortunate, in that both had the
same strong anti-iconoclastic views. Nicephorus’s history ends in the year 769; it is a poor piece
of work, clearly written with the aim
265
266
of pleasing the populace; and it is valuable only because of the general dearth of contemporary
histories. Theophanes is a much abler writer; though the later part of his Chronography, which
extends to 813, is so coloured by his anti-iconoclastic opinions as to leave out events that
reflected credit on his opponents. The extent of his high-minded dishonesty during these last
years is equalled by that of a very valuable fragment known as Scriptor Incertus de Leone
Armenio, [1] a work of additional importance to students of Bulgarian history in that it deals
largely with Krum’s later campaigns. Theophanes’ dating also is unsatisfactory; he employs a
system of mentioning the Annus Mundi, the Indiction year, and the regnal year of the Emperor
and the Calif (earlier, that of the Persian King). As each year began on a different day, the results
do not always coincide as well as they should. [2]
With the ninth century our information becomes fuller, as both Latin and native Bulgarian
records begin to be of value. Setting them aside for the moment, we must notice the increased
activity of the Greek chroniclers towards the end of the ninth and beginning of the tenth
centuries, who treated of the ninth century. The oldest is George the Monk, who based his work
on Theophanes, but continued it to 842; but his ecclesiastical interests make him tend to ignore
foreign politics. But the main sources for the century are two groups of chronicles, both written
in the middle of the tenth century. The one consists of the history of Genesius, which extends to
886—an important but prejudiced work, bearing the obvious marks of official patronage—and
the work known as the Continuation of Theophanes, Books i. to v., also written at the behest of
the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogennetus, who himself contributed a chapter on his
grandfather, Basil I; the other consists of the synoptic chroniclers, based on the
1. An example of the necessity for corroborative evidence to the Scriptor Incertus is given in
Appendix VII.
2. For two periods, during most of the seventh century and again for the middle of the eighth
century, hfrdatings do not coincide. See the references given above, p. 41, n. 2.
267
chronicle of the mysterious Logothete, who wrote a work reaching down to 948. This work is
unpublished, but its Slavonic translation and the redactions of Leo Grammaticus and Theodosius
of Melitene probably represent with fair accuracy its original form, and the Continuation of
George the Monk is closely akin. Book vi. of the Continuation of Theophanes is, as far as the
year 948, based on the Logothete, with a few current traditions added; from 948 to 961 it
apparently depends on contemporary knowledge. [1]
After 961 the chroniclers again become fewer. For the reigns of Nicephorus Phocas, John
Tzimisces, and the early years of Basil II we have the valuable testimony of a contemporary, Leo
Diaconus. Otherwise, for Samuel’s reign and Basil II’s Bulgarian war, we are dependent solely
on the chronicle written by John Scylitzes in the middle of the eleventh century, dealing with the
period 811 to 1079. He derived his material from all the previous chronicles that covered the
period, but claimed to have seen through their prejudices—that is to say, he introduced fresh
prejudices. He also made use of one or more sources now lost to us. His work (as far as 1057)
was copied out word for word (about the year 1100) by Cedrenus in an otherwise unimportant
compilation, and is most easily accessible in that form. But there is also a MS. of Scylitzes
copied by the Bulgarian bishop, Michael of Devol, who inserted various addenda, such as names
and dates, all of great importance to Bulgarian historians, of which we would otherwise be
ignorant. [2] The remaining Greek chroniclers that cover the period of the Bulgarian Empire,
epitomes such as Zonaras, Manasses, Glycas, &c, are of no great importance to us here.
1. During the ‘synoptic’ period I refer to Theophanes Continuatus rather than the others, as its
account is the fullest. But there are occasions when its story is embroidered by legends that must
be taken with caution—e.g. over the death of Symeon, where its details run counter to the
Logothete’s account. On such occasions I refer also to the older version.
2. These very important additions are tabulated in Prokič’s Zusätze in der Handschrift des
Johannes Skylitzes, and further discussed in his Jovan Skilitza.
268
Besides the chronicles, there are throughout the period various Greek hagiographical
biographies. By far the most important are the works of Theophylact, Greek Archbishop of
Ochrida in the late eleventh century. Theophylact wrote a work on the early Bulgarian martyrs,
and edited the life of Saint Clement, the famous apostle of Cyril and Methodius. For both of
these he must have drawn on local Bulgarian traditions, and possibly written sources; and they,
therefore, must rank as the first native examples of Bulgarian historical literature. There are other
purely Imperial works, which by casual references throw very valuable sidelights on Bulgarian
history—lives of Patriarchs such as the Vita Nicephori by Ignatius, the Vita Ignatii by Nicetas, or
the very important anonymous Vita Euthymii, or of local saints such as the Vita S. Lucae
Junioris, the Vita S. Niconis Metanoeite, the Vita S. Mariae Novae, &c. The incidental nature of
their evidence makes it all the more reliable: though all the local biographers are sparing in their
use of dates. Even more important, though few in number, are the collections of letters written by
various Greek ecclesiastics and statesmen—the letters of the Patriarchs Photius and Nicholas
Mysticus (the latter of immense importance for Symeon’s career) and Theophylact, of the
Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, and, most interesting of all, the correspondence of the Imperial
ambassador Leo the Magister, which includes some of Symeon of Bulgaria’s replies. With
regard to these letters, it must all the while be remembered that their authors were engaged in
politics and held strong views and desired definite results; their evidence is therefore highly
partial. This is particularly true of the great Patriarchs. With these hagiographical writings must
be included the List of Bulgarian Archbishops (quoted in Ducange) and the ordinances of Basil
II about the Bulgarian Church after his conquest of the country. Finally, there are various Greek
treatises, of which the best known and most important are the works of the Emperor Constantine
Porphyrogennetus, especially
269
that strange compendium of history, ethnography, and diplomatic advice known as the De
Administrando Imperio. Unfortunately and curiously, Constantine never deals directly with
Bulgaria, a subject on which he must have had copious information. [1] Almost as important, in
that they deal with the obscure period of Samuel’s reign, are the two treatises joined together
under the name of the Strategicon of Cecaumenus, one by Cecaumenus and the other by a
relative of his, probably surnamed Niculitzes. Of the authors we know little, except that their
relatives played considerable parts in Basil II’s Bulgarian wars. The treatises contain a number of
general precepts, with frequent citations of historical examples and precedents. There are also
references to the Bulgarians in the curious Lexicon compiled in the tenth century by Suidas. [2]
The few Oriental sources must be taken in connection with the Greek. The Arab geographers
took little interest in Balkan Bulgaria; and the Arab and Armenian chroniclers only repeat, very
occasionally, items that trickled through to them from the Empire: though the Armenians took a
flickering and unreliable interest in the adventures of Armenian soldiers in Basil II’s Bulgarian
wars. Only two of the Oriental chroniclers were really interested in Balkan affairs. Eutychius, the
Patriarch of Alexandria, as a Christian, kept watch on events at the Imperial Court. [3] His
chronicle ends at the year 937, and he died in 940. His continuator, Yachya of Antioch, who died
in 1040, is more important. When he wrote, Antioch was a Christian city under the Empire; he
therefore was in touch with all the contemporary history of the Empire. He makes frequent and
important references to Basil II’s Bulgarian wars; but their importance has, I think, been
exaggerated. [4] Our anxiety
1. For Constantine Porphyrogennetus’s works, see Bury’s commentaries, the treatise De

Administrando Imperio, and The Ceremonial Book.
2. There is also an unsatisfactory but clearly significant reference to the Bulgarians in

Gameniates’s description of the sack of Thessalonica.
3. e.g. his interest in Symeon’s marriage scheme. See Appendix X.
4. By Rosen, who practically discovered him, and by Zlatarski. Uspenski and Schlumberger take
a more temperate view.
270
for additional evidence for this dark period should not blind us to the fact that Yachya is
undeniably muddle-headed about Bulgarian affairs, e.g. on the relations between the Comitopuli
and the sons of Peter, of which he obviously had no clear idea himself; his information probably
came from hearsay and underwent alterations before it reached Antioch. Yachya’s great value
lies in his accuracy on Basil’s eastern campaigns, his clear dating of which enables us to amend
the dating of the Bulgarian campaigns. Latin sources are non-existent till the ninth century:
except for those early Imperial historians—e.g. Ennodius or the Goth Jordanes—who
occasionally mention the pre-Balkan Bulgars. In the ninth century the westward expansion of
Bulgaria resulted in connections with the Western Empire. The Carolingian chroniclers begin to
make simple, but well-dated, references to Bulgarian wars and embassies. After the coming of
the Hungarians at the end of the century these references practically cease. However, the
conversion of Bulgaria and Boris’s ecclesiastical policy brought the country into close relations
with Rome, and for a while Papal correspondence lights up Bulgarian history. Most important
among these is the long letter written by Nicholas I to answer Boris’s questions as to the
desirability of various Bulgarian habits and customs. At the same time, Bulgarian affairs are
recorded in the official lives of the Popes. [1] After Boris reverted to the Eastern Church these
Papal sources soon cease, but occasional mention is still made of the Bulgarians in Italian
chroniclers, e.g. Lupus Protospatharius, who wrote at the Imperial city of Bari, and in Venetian
and Dalmatian writers, especially when, in Samuel’s reign, Bulgarian influences extended up the
Adriatic, and later, retrospectively, by the first Hungarian historians. Besides these chroniclers
and ecclesiastical writers, there is one Latin author who, from his personal
1. Information on the Bogomils is given fitfully in various of the later Latin authors who wrote
on the Albigenses; but they lie somewhat outside of our scope.
271
experience of politics in the East, deserves special mention, Liudprand, Bishop of Cremona,
whose relatives and who himself went often on embassies to Constantinople. Liudprand was a
gossipy and unreliable historian with a taste for sensational rumours; but he was a contemporary,
he liked vivid details, and, until his second embassy, he was interested and unprejudiced. He
therefore ranks among the most important authorities.
The Slavonic sources are few, but most of them are of great importance. I deal with the Princes’
List below; apart from it we have no Slavonic evidence on Bulgarian history till the Conversion.
The literature of the Conversion of Moravia, the lives of Cyril and of Methodius, touch on
Bulgarian affairs, and are the beginnings of a stream of Slavonic hagiographical writings, all of
considerable importance. For the First Empire I would cite particularly the Life of Saint Nahum,
and, to a less degree, The Miracles of Saint George. The birth of Bulgarian literature naturally
introduces a valuable new element, though most of the works were merely translations from the
Greek. [1] But prefaces and epilogues supply, not only an occasional date, but also a picture of
the civilization at the time; there are also original works of great significance, such as Khrabr’s
and Kozma’s. I have dealt with them more fully above (p. 139). In addition to these sources there
is the important Russian chronicle known, certainly wrongly, as The Chronicle of Nestor. It is
derived partly from a Bulgarian translation of George the Monk and his continuator, partly from
various Greek and Slavonic religious writings, partly from oral information and native Russian
records. [2] Where it touches on Bulgarian history its value is obvious; but it also requires notice
with regard to its dating, which I discuss in connection with the Princes’ List. The native
writings of the Bogomils,
1. These Slavonic hagiographical works have been carefully edited by various Slavonic savants,
and any problems that they present are there discussed.
2. For ‘Nestor’s’ sources, see the preface to Léger’s La Chronique dite de Nestor.
272
though for the most part they belong to a later date, are important for the light that they throw on
the political situation of the sect.
Besides the literary sources, there are various archaeological sources. By these I mean the
excavations that have been undertaken at various important old Bulgarian sites. Those at Preslav-
on-the-Danube have produced little results, but at Pliska the work has thrown great light on the
civilization of the ninth-century Khans. The work at Great Preslav has not yet produced results
of the value that had been hoped. I also include in these sources the inscriptions written in crude
Greek by which the ninth-century Khans recorded on columns or stones various events of
importance. The significance of these sources is obvious. [1] It is always possible that new
excavations and the discovery of more inscriptions may necessitate considerable emendations in
our present knowledge of early Bulgarian history.
1. The Pliska excavations and most of these inscriptions have been fully recorded in the volume
Aboba-Pliska, compiled by MM. Uspenski and Shkorpil.
Appendices
Appendix II
The Bulgarian Princes’ List
The Bulgarian Princes’ List is a document of such importance to early Bulgarian history that it
demands separate notice. It exists in two practically identical manuscripts, one at Leningrad, one
at Moscow, written in old Slavonic, and contains a list of the Bulgarian rulers from Avitokhol to
Umor, with dates; but its great interest lies in that the entry clearly indicating the date of each
accession is in an unknown language, which must be old
273
Bulgar. Translated into English, the List runs as follows:
‘Avitokhol lived 300 years, his race Dulo, and his years dilom tvirem:
Irnik lived 100 years and 5 years, his race Dulo, and his years dilom tuirem:
Gostun as regent 2 years, his race Ermi, and his years dokhs tvirem:
Kurt reigned 60 years, his race Dulo, and his years shegor vechem:
Bezmer 3 years, his race Dulo, and his years shegor vechem.
These 5 princes held their rule, with shorn heads, on the other side of the Danube for 515 years;
and after, there came Prince Isperikh to this side of the Danube where they are now.
Isperikh, prince, 60 years and 1 year, his race Dulo, his years her enialem:
Tervel 21 years, his race Dulo, and his years tekuchitem tvirem:
. . . 28 years, his race Dulo, and his years dvansh ekhtem:
Sevar 15 years, [1] his race Dulo, and his years tokh altom:
Kormisosh 17 years, his race Vokil, and his years shegor tvirem: this prince changed the race of
Dulo, that is to say Vikhtum [2]:
Vinekh 7 years, his race Ukil, and his years shegor alem:
Telets 3 years, his race Ugain, and his years somor altem, he too of another race:
Umor 40 days, his race Ukil, and his [years] dilom tutom.’
There is one obvious emendation to be made; to make the five first princes’ reigns add up to 515
we must alter the length of Irnik’s into 150 years. [3] But nothing else can be done until we
discover the significance of the Bulgar words. As they stand, there is no means of finding out
their meaning: though the Bulgarian, Tudor Doksov, writing early in the tenth century,
apparently used the same system. But, though a few scholars [4] attempted to bring Turkish and
Mongol philology to bear on the question, they could evolve no definite equation between this
dating and any known dating. It was not till some thirty
1. From the photographs of both the MSS. I read here ‘ εί ’ which must be intended for 15; but
Bury, Marquart, and Mikkola all take it to be 5.
2. This rendering is a little doubtful; after ‘Dulo’ the text goes ‘Vrekshevi Khtun.’
3. Jireček, Geschichte, pp. 127 ff.: Bury, however (op. cit. below), thinks the change
unnecessary.
4. e.g. Kuun (Relationum Hungarorum) and Radloff (Die Alttürkischen Inschriften).

274
years ago, when Russian excavators discovered the Chatalar inscription, that a point of contact
was found; Omortag’s foundation of Preslav was dated in the 15th Indiction (i.e. September 821-
September 822), or the Bulgarian date σιγορελεμ, shegor alem.
It would take too long to give a detailed account of the results that savants have evolved from
this additional evidence. I shall merely deal generally with the chief investigators and state which
I follow. Bury was the first serious investigator. In 1910 he published a clue to the Bulgar words,
[1] which, he declared, fitted all known facts, though he emended the text with regard to the later
princes, to reconcile it better with the data of the Greek chroniclers. His theory demanded a cycle
of 60 lunar years—a cycle not unfamilar among Oriental tribes—the first series of figures—e.g.
dilom—represented the units, the second the decades. He claimed for this system that it was free
from the dangerous trap of linguistic similarities. Unfortunately the dates that he thus evolved
upset known history, as Marquart pointed out. [2] In particular, the Bulgars had to cross the
Danube 20 years earlier.
Marquart’s criticisms were damaging, but not constructive. However, in 1914, Professor
Mikkola of Helsingfors fell back on to the help of philology, and evolved a key, [3] which
provided a twelve-year cycle, in which each year was given the name of some animal—the first
Bulgar word being therefore a name, not a number—a suggestion that had already been
tentatively put forward by Petrovski. Analogies with Turkish and Cuman words (e.g. dvansh =
Turkish davšan, a hare; tokh = Cuman taok, a hen) and the order of the years in their cycles
enabled Mikkola to translate these Bulgar names and fix their order in the cycle. The second
Bulgar words he took to be the ordinal numbers of the months, and, on analogous linguistic
comparisons, he arrived at an order for them.
1. In the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. xix., pp. 127 ff.
2. Marquart, Die Altbulgarische Ausdrucke, pp. I ff.
3. Mikkola, Tyurksko-Bolgarskoe Lietochislenie, pp. 243 ff.

275
Mikkola’s philological arguments are convincing and have now generally been accepted. But his
dates do not fit with the dates known from our Greek sources, particularly with regard to the
Khans living in the time of Copronymus. To produce better results, Mikkola made one or two
later emendations, but ineffectively. [1] The matter remained unsatisfactory till Professor
Zlatarski set to work on it.
Zlatarski, who had first accepted a modified form of Bury’s theory, [2] now [3] followed
Mikkola’s first key: i.e. somor = rat, the 1st year of the cycle, shegor = ox, the 2nd: beri = wolf,
the 3rd; dvansh = hare, the 4th; dilom = snake, the 6th; tokh = hen, the 10th; etkh = dog, the
11th; dokhs = pig, the 12th. The months were alem, 1st; vechem, 2nd; tutom, 4th; altom, 6th;
ekhtem, 8th; tvirem, 9th. These words involve one or two alterations in the text, all very
plausible, e.g. tekuchitem is shortened to etkh. Tudor Doksov’s bekhti is taken to be the 5th
month. But Zlatarski has two important emendations to make to Mikkola’s and previous theories.
First, he reverts to a system of lunar years; secondly, he begins a new era in A.D. 680, when the
Bulgars established themselves south of the Danube.
It would take too long to discuss his arguments in detail. I can only say here that they seem to me
to be sound in themselves and justified by their results. Till A.D. 680 he accepts an era of cycles
beginning at the year of the Incarnation: e.g. Avitokhol began to reign in the lunar year A.D.
150, which is the 6th year of a cycle. From John of Nikiou we can place Kubrat’s death about
642, i.e. 662 lunar. Therefore Bezmer ended in 665 lunar; and, if we subtract 515, for the length
of the 5 reigns, we reach the year 150 lunar. The coincidence of the first year of a cycle with the
birth of Christ seems to me arbitrary and may be quite fortuitous; though it is curious that A.D.
679 solar (the year of the Invasion) = A.D. 700 lunar—a mystic
1. Idem, Die Chronologie der Turkischen Donaubulgaren, p. 11.
2. Zlatarski, Imali li sa Bulgaritie sboe Lietobroenie.
3. Idem, Istoriya, i., 1, pp. 353-82, a full discussion of his views and arguments.
276
number that would certainly attract the attention of a Greek; and Zlatarski has shown
convincingly that the List must have been written first in Greek, probably soon after Umor’s
death, and so almost certainly by a Greek. Zlatarski also points out that the lengths of the reigns
are calculated, not accurately, but from the cyclic years in which the accessions and deaths
occurred. A difficulty arises over Isperikh’s accession. If Bezmer reigned 3 years with Isperikh
as his successor, Isperikh’s reign would begin, not in the year beri, but in the 5th year. Zlatarski
solves it by identifying Bezmer with Baian (Isperikh is beyond question Asperuch), and by
making Isperikh break off from Bezmer 2 years before Bezmer’s death. This must be the
approximate solution, though personally I prefer to keep Bezmer and Baian separate. Baian is a
good Bulgar name, and is not very similar to Bezmer; moreover, the chronology seems to me to
demand a generation between Kubrat and Asperuch.
With the year 680 a new cycle begins. Here Zlatarski works back from the date of Telets’s
succession, which we know from Theophanes to have been in A.D. 761—2. [1] Our
interpretation of the List places it in November, A.D. 761. The first difficulty that arises is that,
according to the List, the period between the Invasion and Telets’s succession is 23 [2] + 21 + 28
+ 15 + 17 + 7 = in lunar years, which is far too many. We must, therefore, abandon as inaccurate
some of the stated lengths of reigns. Moreover, as the List’s lengths contradict the List’s dates, as
we interpret them, it seems only reasonable to amend the lengths where they disagree with the
dates. Measuring the years by the List’s system, Zlatarski reduces Tervel’s reign to 17 years, the
unknown’s to 6: Sevar’s is raised to 16, Kormisosh’s is unaltered, Vinekh’s reduced to 6. This
adds up to 85 lunar years, i.e. about 82 solar years—679—761. After Telets, Zlatarski inserts the
2 years of Sabin, of the existence of which at that point we are informed by the
2. The length of Isperikh’s reign after the Invasion.
277
Greeks; this makes Umor’s year dilom, as it is in the List. Without the insertion of Sabin’s reign
it would be dvansh.
Zlatarski’s final results are, therefore, as follows:
Avitokhol began to reign March A.D. 146 [1]
Irnik March 437
Gostun September 582
Kurt February 584
Bezmer April 642
Isperikh February 643
His separation: January 645
The beginning of the Bulgar era: January 680
Tervel began to reign December 701
Unknown May 718
Sevar January 724
Kormisosh October 739
Vinekh September 756
Telets November 761
(Sabin October 764)
Umor July 766
These results cannot naturally claim absolute certainty; but the arguments with which Zlatarski
supports them seem to me to carry conviction.
Zlatarski goes on to show that Tudor Doksov and his contemporaries also calculated their
otherwise inexplicable dates by means of the Bulgarian era. Placing the Creation in the year
5505 B.C., they began the Bulgarian era at A.M. 6185; but for their dates after that they used
lunar years. Thus the Conversion of Bulgaria is dated in both A.M. 6376 and 6377, but Tudor
Doksov calls the year on Etkh bekhti. Now, 6376 – 6185 = 191, which would give the 11th year
of a 12-year cycle. Moreover, as Zlatarski’s arithmetic shows, the 5th month of the lunar year
191 = the solar year 184.62 to 184.71, which equals September
1. The months are naturally approximate, as lunar months do not coincide with solar.
278
865. Zlatarski also attempts to show that the Russian chronicler known as ‘Nestor’ dates Imperial
events by the same system. It is inherently probable, in that ‘Nestor’ derived his information on
the Empire from Bulgarian translations. But while Zlatarski makes clear the interesting fact the
‘Nestor’ was using here a system of lunar years, I do not think that it is possible to credit
‘Nestor’ with definitely taking over the system. Textual emendations are necessary to make
several of the instances fit. I think that ‘Nestor’ was unaware of the intricacies of Bulgarian
chronology, and simply was muddled. As evidence his dates are of little value.
There is one more point that merits elucidation. 515, the number of years that the five first
Khans, Avitokhol to Bezmer, are said to have reigned, has always been taken simply to represent
the traditional time spent by the Bulgars on the Steppes before Asperuch’s first migration. But it
is highly unlikely that they remained in one place for roughly that period. The number 515 has
another significance. According to the chronological system of Africanus, commonly used at
Constantinople, A.D. 680, the first year of the Bulgarian era = A.M. 6180. But 6180 years
represents 515 cycles of 12 years. A Greek, aware of the Bulgars’ system of 12-year cycles, but
unaware of their use of a lunar year, might well inform the Bulgars that 515 cycles had passed
before they crossed the Danube. The 515 cycles became corrupted into 515 years, which, again,
for the sake of greater realism, were assigned to the five Bulgar Khans whose names were
known; and the first two Khans received the well-rounded, but lengthy reigns of 300 and 150
years respectively, so that the number might be built up: though, as I show below, in the case of
Irnik’s accession there was historical justification.
This emphasizes once more the great difficulty of the List, a difficulty that its every interpreter
must bear in mind. It was almost certainly written for the Bulgars by Greek slaves, and combines
an Oriental system of dating with ideas based by these ignorant Greeks on superstition
279
and an occasional coincidence. Thus no one simple theory of interpretation can suffice, and, for
that reason alone, Bury’s gallant mental exercise was doomed to failure. [1]
1. In the Godishnik of the National Museum of Sofia, 1922–5, Feher has made a profound
study of the Greek evidence revelant to the dating of the List. But his results do not, I
think, seriously demand an alteration in the dating suggested above.
Appendices
Appendix III
Ernach and Irnik
It is impossible not to be struck by the resemblance of the name Irnik, the second prince in the
List, with Ernach or Ernac, the youngest and favourite son of Attila. It is, however, always a
dangerous pastime to identify persons whose names chance to be similar, particularly among
semi-barbarian tribes, where very often several distinct names are derived from one common
root; though, on the other hand, it is extremely seldom that two distinct persons bear the same
name, as happens in more civilized society.
Professor Zlatarski regards it as being wrong and pointless to seek for this identification. [2] It
certainly must be conceded that we know very little of Ernach’s career after Attila’s death (A.D.
453). Priscus merely tells us that he, with his brother Dengisich, ruled over a remnant of Attila’s
empire in Little Scythia (the modern Bessarabia), whence they used to raid the Empire; and in
the course of one of these raids Dengisich was slain. [3] Zlatarski points out that, (i.) according
to the List, Irnik began to reign in 437, not 453, (ii.) the Balkan Bulgarians descend from an
eastern branch, the Utigurs, who lived to the east of the Don, (iii.) if Ernach is Irnik, both he and
Attila must have
2. Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 1, pp. 40–2.
3. Priscus, Fragmenta, p. 587.
280
belonged to the house of Dulo, whereas, actually, we never hear the name mentioned in
connection with them.
Zlatarski’s points are all indisputable, but they do not seem to me to provide effective arguments,
(i.) and (iii.) indeed verge on the absurd, (i.) Where a prince is assigned a reign of 150 years, it is
surely a little too credulous to assume that the date of his accession must be accurate. A mistake
of 16 years is, under the circumstances, quite venial, (iii.) There is no reason why we should
know Attila’s surname. Not only do the surnames of barbarous families frequently change in the
course of generations, but it seems to me that the argument would only be conclusive if we were
definitely informed that Attila did not belong to the house of Dulo. (ii.) This is a stronger
argument; I certainly agree that Kubrat’s kingdom had the Utigurs as its nucleus. But here I think
the Onogunduri come in. They were the remnant of Attila’s empire which Ernach and his family
preserved; and, under the stress of Avar rule, they either were forcibly moved eastward or
migrated themselves in an attempt to escape beyond the Avar frontier. Probably it was one of
their princes that headed the Bulgar revolt against the Avars, and thus acquired the command of
the united Bulgar kingdom. The seat of the kingdom would naturally be in Utigur territory, as
being the part of the kingdom freest from Avar attack. This theory seems to me not only to meet
Zlatarski’s argument, but also to explain the prominence of the name Onogunduri, which cannot
be a composite name or a misnomer, but must represent a definite tribe. [1]
Under these circumstances, especially considering the remarkable similarity of the names, it is
surely unnecessarily hypercritical to refuse to identify Irnik with Ernach, and not to trace the
Bulgar royal line from Attila.
The question now arises whether Attila should be identified with Avitokhol. If Ernach is Irnik,
this second identification is not very important. Personally, I am
1. See above, p. 15–6.
281
suspicious; I regard Avitokhol, like Attila, as an elaborated form of Awit, the Turkish for
ancestor, which received new meaning when Bible stories reached the Steppes, and the Turks
and Khazars and Huns decided to trace their descent from Japheth. [1] (Incidentally Hungarian
writers used to elaborate this descent, placing thirty-four generations between Japheth and Attila.
[2]) The resultant similarity of the name with Attila’s may well have fixed it firmer in the minds
of the Bulgars; but actually I believe that Avitokhol was a distant ancestor, the first founder of
the race. We must remember that Attila looms largely in our history because his career was
chiefly directed towards conquest in the West. Ernach, whose government was definitely
Eastern, may even have indulged in Eastern conquests of which we know nothing, and, anyhow,
might well figure more largely than Attila in Eastern tradition.
1. See above, p. 12. Attila is probably a diminutive of Awit; Okhol certainly = oghul, a son.
2. e.g. de Thwrocz.
Appendices
Appendix IV
Christianity among the Slavs before the ninth century
Byzantium has often been blamed by ecclesiastical writers for waiting till the ninth century to
introduce the blessings of Christianity to the Balkan Slavs. The attack is unjustified. During the
late sixth and seventh centuries the waves of Avar, Slavonic, and Bulgar invasion prevented
more than fitful missionary enterprise, while during the eighth and early ninth centuries the great
Iconoclastic controversy at home ruled out the possibility of a vigorous ecclesiastical policy
abroad. Consequently, with one great exception, Christianity was only
282
spread among the Balkan Slavs by the local influence of sees that survived the storms.
The names of these sees can be found in the semiofficial notitiae, the lists drawn up by
Epiphanius (in the seventh century), Basil (in the early ninth century), the notitia published by de
Boor (ninth century), and that of Leo the Wise (early tenth century), and in the lists of bishops
present at the various Councils. These lists have been ably tabulated by Dvornik. [1] We must
remember, however, that while the notitiae are fairly reliable—after making due allowances for
carelessness and copyists’ errors—the failure of a see to be represented at a Council does not
necessarily mean that the see no longer existed. An investigation of this evidence shows roughly
that round the coasts of the Balkan peninsula the Christian cities lived an uninterrupted life, but,
except on the Aegean coast, there was hardly any Christian hinterland. On the Black Sea coast
the cities south of Mesembria appear on every list; to the north, Odessus (Varna) apparently
lasted till the early ninth century, when no doubt it was finally occupied by the Bulgars; farther
inland, the last see of the old Moesian provinces, Marcianopolis, lasted only into the seventh
century, and then was presumably destroyed by the Bulgars. Farther south, Adrianople remained
a constant centre of Christianity, and Philippopolis also, until its annexation by the Bulgars in the
ninth century. Sardica, however, though certainly occupied by the Empire till the ninth century,
is not mentioned; probably it was merely a garrison city without much religious life. Between
Rhodope and the sea, Christianity lived on; in Macedonia, which was more exposed to invasions,
only the bigger towns near to Thessalonica survived. In the Greek hinterland the Slav tribes
remained pagan until they were brought under definite political control by the Empire in the
ninth century. On the whole, all that we can say is that, where the Slavs were under Imperial
rule, the local bishoprics
1. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome, pp. 60–99.
283
spread Christianity among them; but over the frontiers the bishoprics were extinguished, and
there was no missionary enterprise save by a few isolated Christian captives at heathen Courts,
such as Omortag’s slave, Cinamon.
There is, however, one exception. In the De Administrando Imperio (pp. 148–9, 153)
Constantine Porphyrogennetus tells us that the Emperor Heraclius (610–41) sent for clergy from
Rome to baptize the Croatians and Serbs: which was successfully achieved. The story has been
doubted [1]; but it is perfectly plausible. Heraclius was for much of his reign on excellent terms
with the Papacy, and Illyricum was still then a Roman ecclesiastical province. Moreover, he was
a vigorous ruler, who clearly would wish to deal with the Slavonic problem. Constantine
connects the Conversion with Heraclius’s political dealings with the Slavs—his recognition of
their occupation of the country on condition of their recognition of his suzerainty. Constantine is
almost certainly telling the truth; but he omitted to say that Heraclius’s success was extremely
ephemeral. In his previous chapter (written later) he shows (p. 145) the Croatians asking for
priests from Rome in the ninth century: while the Serbs were certainly not a fully Christian
nation till the days of Cyril and Methodius. It is most reasonable to assume that Heraclius’s great
missionary enterprise did, in fact, exist, but achieved nothing lasting; and certainly it cannot have
had any effect at all in the Balkan peninsula to the east of Serbia.
Thus Christianity among the Balkan Slavs before the ninth century was almost certainly limited
to those Slavs that were definitely under Imperial control, save round the frontiers, where the
Greek (and, in the north-west, the Latin Dalmatian) cities spread their influence, and save the
individual efforts of a few captive Christian slaves. Since Heraclius’s day the state of the Empire,
and indeed of all Christendom, had not been such as to permit of any more comprehensive
evangelization of the Balkans.
1. Jireček, Geschichte der Serben, i., p. 104.
Appendices
Appendix V
Bulgar titles
A little light is thrown on to the administration of the early Bulgar Empire by our knowledge of
the names of several Bulgar titles; though it is impossible to draw many conclusions from them,
as it is difficult to tell which titles represent offices and which mere ornamental dignities.
The ruler in all his inscriptions is the Khan or the Sublime Khan—κάνας or κάννας, with the
epithet ὐβιγή or ὐβηγη—a word which is clearly the Cuman öweghü = high, renowned. [1] The
inscriptions often add the title ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ ἄρχων, probably introduced by the Greek scribes, who
considered that a necessary qualification for every prince. The title of Khan disappears after the
introduction of Christianity and the Slavonic alphabet, to be replaced by Knyaz, and later by
Tsar.
The main class of the nobility was the boyars—βοιλάδες or βοηλάδες—a name that became
general among the Eastern Slavs. In the tenth century there were three classes of boyars, the six
Great Boyars, the Outer Boyars, and the Inner Boyars [2]; in the mid-ninth century there were
twelve Great Boyars. [3] The Great Boyars probably comprised the Khan’s confidential Cabinet;
the Inner Boyars were probably the Court officers, the Outer Boyars provincial officers. [4]
Many of the individuals mentioned on the ninth-century inscriptions were boyars. The Kavkan
Isbules and the Bagatur Tsepa were both boyars; but I am inclined to think that the boyars were
civil officers.
1. Marquart, Die Chronologie, p. 40.
2. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Ceremoniis, i., p. 681. At the reception of Bulgarian

ambassadors it was correct to inquire after their healths.
3. Idem, De Administrando Imperio, p. 154. They were captured along with the Crown Prince
Vladimir by the Serbians.
4. I follow Zlatarski’s solution—Kvi sâ bili Vâtrieshini i Vunshni Bolyari, passim.
284
285
The second class of the nobility, probably inferior, was the bagaïns. These, I conjecture, were a
military caste; but their name only occurs in inscriptions, collectively (Omortag gave his boyars
and bagaïns presents on one occasion), or singly where it is usually coupled with the title
bagatur. [1] In addition to these ranks, almost every Bulgarian subject commemorated on an
inscription was a θρεπτὸς ἄνθρωπος of the Khan. The θρεπτοὶ ἄνθρωποι were, no doubt, a rough
order of knighthood, a nominal body guard of the Khans. [2]
The title bagatur—βαγατουρ or βογοτορ—is several times found on the inscriptions; while the
Bulgarian general who was defeated in Croatia in 927 is called by Constantine ἀλογοβοτουρ,
obviously for ἀλο-βογοτουρ. [3] This word is the Turkish bagadur, found in Russian as bogatyr
= a hero. It probably represents a military rank. The prefix alo may mean ‘chief or ‘head’ (Bang
equates it with the Turkish alp, alyp [4]) or merely be a proper name. The title vagantur, found in
the list of Bulgarian legates at Constantinople in 869—70 (see below), is clearly the same as
bagatur.
Colobrus—καλοβρός or κουλουβρός—found only in the inscriptions, was probably a title of

rank, derived from the Turkish golaghuz, a guide. [5] The Boyar Tsepa was a colobrus as well as
a bagatur.
Zhupan, once as ζουπάν and once as κοπάνος, occurs in the inscriptions. On both occasions the
family of the bearer is mentioned. Among the Southern Slavs generally, zhupan meant the head
of a tribe; so Uspenski and Bury plausibly take it to mean the head of one of the Bulgar clans. [6]
1. e.g. those quoted in Aboba-Pliska, pp. 201–2, 190–2. Enravotas, Malamir’s brother, who was
also called Boïnos, may have been a bagaïn (Theophylact, Historia XV. Martyrum, p. 193).
2. See Aboba-Pliska, pp. 204 ff. Uspenski reaches this conclusion.
3. Aboba-Pliska, pp. 190–2: Constantine Porphyrogennetus, op. cit., p. 158.

4. Marquart, op. cit., p. 40 n.
5. Ibid., p. 41.
6. Aboba-Pliska, p. 199: Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, p. 334.
286
Sampses—σαμψής—does not appear on the inscription, but Saint Clement’s host in Pliska was
Eschatzes, σαμήψ τὸ εξίωμα, two of the legates of 869—70 were sampses, and Symeon, Tsar
Symeon’s brother-in-law, the ambassador in 927, was οὐσάμψος or οὐσάμψις, which is
obviously a variant. [1] Presumably the sampses held a post about the Court.
The title tarkan probably represented a high military post. It was of Turkish origin; a Turkish
ambassador to the Court of the Emperor Justin II (c. A.D. 570) was called tagma, ‘ ἀξίωμα δε
αυτῷ ταρχάν. ’ [2] Onegavon, who was drowned in the River Theiss, was a tarkan; so was the
Zhupan Okhsun. [3] When Saint Clement arrived at Belgrade he was greeted by Boritacanus ‘
τῷ τότε φυλάσσοντι, ’ the ‘ὑποστράτηγος’ of the Khan Boris. [4] Boritacanus must mean the
Tarkan Boris; his position was clearly equivalent to an Imperial strategus, i.e. he was the military
governor of a province. I therefore hazard the conjecture that the tarkan may be equated with the
Imperial strategus. The Bulgarian provincial governors—there were ten in Boris’s reign—were
called by Greek and Latin writers counts. [5] We cannot tell if this represents a translation of
some Bulgar title, or if the Bulgars came to adopt the word κόμης. In 927 the Ambassador
Symeon the sampses, the late Tsar’s brother-in-law, was also called the καλουτερκάνος: while
polite questions were to be put to Bulgarian ambassadors in the tenth century as to the healths of
their ruler’s ‘sons,’ ‘ ο κανάρτι κείνος καὶ ὁ βουλίας ταρκάνος.’ [6]
1. Vita S. Clementis, p. 1224: Anastasius Bibliothecarius, ref. given below: Theophanes

Continuatus, p. 413.
2. Menander, Fragmenta, p. 53.

3. Aboba-Pliska, pp. 190, 191.
4. Vita S. Clementis, p. 1221.
5. ‘ Ταριδῆνα κόμητα, ’ Theophylact, op. cit., p. 201; the Bulgar who opposed the return of the
Adrianopolitan captives was the κόμης of the district (Georgius Monachus Continuatus, p. 818),
the father of Samuel and his brothers was a comes (Cedrenus, ii., p. 434), ἑνὸς τῶν παρὰ
Βουλγάροις μέγα δυνηθέντων κόμητο; Bulgaria was divided ‘intra decern comitatus’ (Annales
Bertiniani, p. 85, ad ann. 866).
6. Theophanes Continuatus, p. 413: Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Ceremoniis, p. 681.
287
I think that we must obviously equate καλοντερκανος with καναρτικεινος; both the kalutarkan
and the buliastarkan were officers at the head of the tarkans, and their posts were probably
reserved to members of the royal family. Bulias may be connected with the word bоyar; but by
itself the identification is of little value.
The most important military officer of the realm was the kavkan. In Malamir’s reign the Kavkan
Isbules, the Khan’s παλαιὸς βοϊλᾶς (senior boyar ?) was clearly the next most important person
to the Khan in Bulgaria. He built the Khan an aqueduct at his own expense and accompanied the
Khan to battle, apparently as his general-in-chief. [1] In 922 we hear of Symeon being
accompanied by his kavkan. [2] A century later there were two kavkans, Dometian and his
brother; but they may not have been simultaneous. Dometian was captured by Basil II, and his
brother soon after deserted the Bulgarian cause. Dometian was the συμπαρεδρος of the Tsar
Gabriel-Radomir. [3]
The title tabare, or perhaps iltabare (the old Turkish ältäbär), [4] only occurs among the
ambassadors of 869–70. The name Μηνικός occurs more than once. Symeon in 922 is
accompanied ἅμα κανκάνῳ καὶ μηνικῷ. In 926 the Bulgarian generals Cnenus, Hemnecus, and
Etzboclia invaded Serbia. In 927 the Bulgarian embassy, besides George Sursubul and the
Kalutarkan Symeon, included a royal relative, Stephen, and Magotinus, Cronus, and Menicus.
[5] Zlatarski makes Hemnecus a person, but Menicus a title. [6] Personally, I think that the first
passage should run ἅμα κανκάνῳ Μηνικῷ—Menicus, miscalled Hemnecus by Constantine,

being the kavkan of the period. The other names that appear in the course of the history of the
First Empire we must assume, from lack of evidence to the contrary, to be proper names, not
titles.
1. Aboba-Pliska, pp. 230–1, 233.
4. See Marquart, op. cit., p. 41.
5. Theophanes Continuatus, loc. cit., and p. 413: Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De

Administrando Imperio, p. 158.
6. Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 2, pp. 421–2, 475–6, 523–4.
288
In connection with these titles a word must be said about Anastasius Bibliothecarius’s list of the
Bulgarian legates at the Council of 869–70 at Constantinople. According to him, they were
‘stasiszerco borlas nesundicus vagantur il vestrannatabare praesti zisunas campsis et Alexius
sampsi Hunno’ [1]; ‘. . . zerco borlas’ and ‘nesundicus’ are clearly Cerbula and Sundica, the
Bulgarian statesmen to whom Pope John VIII wrote a letter, and who feature in the Cividale
gospel as Zergobula and Sondoke—‘borlas’ is not a misprint for ‘boëlas’ [2]; ‘vagantur’ is
‘bagatur,’ Sundicus’s title. ‘Il vestrannatabare’ probably is Vestranna the iltabare. Campsis and
sampi are both clearly sampses. The list therefore should run ‘Stasis, Cerbula, Sundica the
bagatur, Vestranna the iltabare, Praestizisunas the sampses, and Alexius Hunno the sampses’
Hunno is probably a surname. Zlatarski identifies Stasis with Peter, and Praestizisunas with the
Bulgar name Presiam or Prusian. The latter identification is plausible; but the fact of Peter often
appearing as Boris’s chief ambassador with regard to ecclesiastical affairs does not necessarily
mean that he must be Stasis.
1. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Praefatio in Synodum VIII., p. 148.
2. See Zlatarski, loc. cit., pp. 794-800, an appendix dealing with the question.
Appendices
Appendix VI
The Great Fence of Thrace
The great line of earthworks [3] that stretches across the northern frontier of Thrace from
Develtus to Macrolivada, and is still in the main discernible, provides a problem for historians as
to the date of its construction.
3. Galled by the Greeks ‘ ἡ μεγάλη σούδα ’ (Cedrenus, ii., p. 372), and now known locally as the
Erkesiya (jerkesen = a trench in Turkish).
289
That it was Bulgar work we know from tradition, archaeology, and historical probability, and we
know that it must have been constructed some time between the Invasion of 679 and the
Conversion of 865.
The line of the Fence runs roughly along what was known in Bulgaro-Imperial treaties as the
Meleona frontier. This frontier was first given to Bulgaria by the treaty between Tervel and
Theodosius III in 716; and it was probably confirmed in a treaty between Kormisosh and
Constantine V. [1] Zlatarski assumes that the Fence was constructed at the time of Tervel’s
treaty, [2] Shkorpil at the time of Kormisosh’s. [3] Both assumptions are plausible, but, as Bury
has pointed out, [4] they leave unexplained a clause of the treaty between Omortag and Leo V in
815. The treaty, which is recorded in the Suleiman-Keni inscription, confirms the Meleona
frontier-line (with possibly one or two emendations), and then in its second clause talks of some
arrangement about various districts on the frontier line that is to be made ‘ ἕως ἐκει γέγονεν ἡ
ὀροθεςία, ’ i.e. until the frontier delimination is completed. By supplying the words ‘ Ἁπολείψειν
’ and ‘ φρούρια ’ in two doubtful places—a reading which seems to me more convincing than
Zlatarski’s [5] — Bury shows that the Imperial troops were to evacuate the frontier forts while
the frontier-line was being made. This can only mean that actual constructive operations were
going to be undertaken on the frontier—i.e. a rampart was to be built. This work would certainly
need the passive co-operation of the
1. Theophanes (p. 775) calls the treaty one between Theodosius and Kormisosh (Cormesius).
Probably there were two treaties (see above, pp. 32–3, 35–6).
2. Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 1, pp. 179-80, 300.
3. Aboba-Pliska, p. 568.
4. Bury, The Bulgarian Treaty of 814, passim.
5. The two readings are as follows, beginning in the middle of line four:
Bury : . . . μέσον τῶν β’ [Απολείψειν τὰ] πολλά γε φρ[ούρια με]σον βαλζηνᾶς κτλ.
Zlatarski : . . . μέσον τῶν β’ [ποταμων επι . . . μ?] λα γέφ[υρα και με]σον βαλζηνᾶς κτλ.
But β’ must refer to the second clause, as the first clause was undoubtedly introduced by α’.
Zlatarski inserts β’ lower down, but it is foolish to reject this β’. I am also unconvinced by
Zlatarski’s bridge.
290
Imperial frontier garrisons, who, if they chose, could interfere and wreck it all. Therefore they
were for the time to be withdrawn.
The brilliant ingenuity of Bury’s argument is, I think, convincing. Nor does Zlatarski’s example
of the word ‘ ὀροθεσία ’ being used in a different sense—‘ ἡ τῶν λ’ χρονων ὀροθεσία ’ in the
letter of the Oriental Synods to Theophilus (p. 368) obviously meaning the frontier-line agreed
upon for thirty years—necessarily affect the obvious use of ‘ ὀροθεσία ’ here. Indeed, I do not
think the phrase in the treaty admits of any translation except Bury’s, and I therefore accept his
conclusions.
It is certainly difficult to see when the Bulgarians would have had time to build so vast a work
except after the guaranteed security of Omortag’s peace. Moreover, if the Meleona frontier was
already guarded by earthworks, it is curious that in Omortag’s peace the line followed by the
Fence should be so carefully stipulated as the frontier when the Fence already marked an old-
established line. It is also curious (though to argue a silentio is notoriously dangerous) that we
never hear of the Fence during Copronymus’s campaigns, if it already existed by then. Actually
Greek historians do not mention it till Nicephorus Phocas’s reign; but, from the little evidence
that we have, Imperial invaders in the late ninth and early tenth centuries seem to have kept to
the coast-route.
Appendices
Appendix VII
Leo the Armenian’s successful campaign
Historians have been unwilling to give Leo V credit even for the one successful campaign that is
claimed for him—his campaign near Mesembria in 813.
291
This campaign is only noticed in Genesius, in Theophanes Continuatus, and in the later
chronicles derived from them; the Continuator’s account is much the most detailed. Theophanes,
the Scriptor Incertus, Ignatius the biographer of Nicephorus, and Georgius Hamartolus, the four
contemporary, or almost contemporary, historians, mention nothing about it. Their silence has
convinced Hirsch and other modern writers that the story is a myth, invented by the source that
Genesius and the Continuator used, to explain the name of the place Βουνὸϊ Λέοντος—the Hill
of Leo. [1]
But, as Bury has pointed out, [2] Theophanes ended his chronicle with the capture of Adrianople,
which was certainly before this campaign; Georgius Hamartolus never took any interest in
external affairs: while all of them were so violently anti-iconoclastic, and therefore so disliked
Leo, that their silence about an event so creditable to him is easily understood. Ignatius and the
Scriptor Incertus are particularly venomous against him. On the other hand, the detailed account
in Theophanes Continuatus does not seem like a later invention.
Zlatarski accepts the existence of the campaign, but places it at Burdizus (Baba-Eski) in Thrace,
not near Mesembria, and dates it after Krum’s death. His reasons are: (i.) only the Continuator
mentions a place in connection with the campaign, and all the accounts imply that it took place
on Imperial territory; (ii.) even the Continuator says that it took place on Imperial territory; (iii.)
Mesembria and its district were captured by Krum in 812; (iv.) it would hardly be possible for
Leo and his army to reach Mesembria so quickly, when shortly before the troops were at
Arcadiopolis. [3]
These objections depend on the assumption that Mesembria was in Bulgar hands. But there is no
evidence that Krum left any garrison in Mesembria after its
1. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien, pp. 125-6.
2. Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, pp. 356-7.
3. Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., 1, pp. 425–32, esp. p. 429.

292
capture; he seems merely to have destroyed it and deserted it—his usual practice with enemy
fortresses—e.g. Adrianople. Whenever Mesembria reappears in history it is as an Imperial city.
[1] Moreover, the coast-line of the Gulf of Burgas was not entirely ceded to Bulgaria till
Theodora’s regency. [2] Mesembria was a very important town for the Imperialists: who
certainly would make an early attempt to recover it; and Leo’s campaign was obviously
undertaken with that object and the additional intention of then attacking Bulgaria in the flank;
and the troops would be certainly moved by sea, which could be done with extreme speed if the
weather was favourable. Moreover, troops working with Mesembria as their’ base would keep in
close touch with Constantinople by sea, and so would suffer no shortage: whereas the
countryside, ravaged by Krum in the previous year and probably uncultivated this season, might
well produce no supplies to feed the Bulgarian army. I think, therefore, that Zlatarski’s
objections can easily be met, and it is unnecessary to improve upon the already quite convincing
account of the Continuator. The most probable date is the autumn of 813, before Krum’s death. It
is, however, just possible that the campaign is the successful campaign promised to Leo by
Sabbatius next year; but the story seems to show that that campaign was never undertaken. [3]
1. It certainly was Imperial when next it is mentioned, in Basil I’s reign (Theophanes
Continuatus, p. 308).
Appendices
Appendix VIII
Malamir and Presiam

A war has been waged by the two great authorities on ninth-century Bulgarian history, Zlatarski
and Bury, over the nomenclature and the duration of the reign
293
of the Khan Malamir. According to Bury—who followed Jireček’s unelaborated theory—he

reigned from Omortag’s death in about 831–2 till 852 (Boris’s accession), and he also had a
Bulgar name, Presiam, which he discarded in the course of his reign; according to Zlatarski he
reigned from 831 to 836, and was succeeded by his nephew Presiam, who reigned till 852. [1]
That Malamir existed we know, not only from inscriptions, but also from the account given by
Theophylact of Ochrida, the only historian to attempt a connected account of the reigns and
relationships of the Khans of Krum’s family; he clearly had access to some older source now
lost. He says that Omortag had three sons, Enravotas, Zvenitzes, and Malamir (Μαλλομηρός);
Malamir succeeded his father, and was succeeded by his nephew, the son of Zvenitzes; a few
lines below this second item he speaks of the Bulgarian Khan as ‘ ὀριθὴς Βωρίσης ’ [2] — a
phrase that has usually been emended as ‘ ὁ ῥηθεὶς Βωρίσης. ’ Malamir is also mentioned as
Baldimer or Vladimir in the account given of the exiles of Adrianople by the Logothete: which a
few lines below suddenly mentions Michael (Boris) as Khan. But all the Logothete’s information
is misty; Baldimer is called the father of Symeon. [3]
This evidence provides no difficulty in assuming that Malamir was Omortag’s successor and
Boris’s predecessor. But an inscription [4] found at Philippi speaks of ‘—ἀνος ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ
ἄρχων,’ who is mentioned along with the Kavkan Isbules; and Constantine Porphyrogennetus
talks, far more disquietingly, of ‘ Πρεσιὰμ ὁ ἀρχὼν Βουλγαρίας, ’ who fought against the
Serbians about 840. Boris-Michael was, he says, Presiam’s son. [5] Presiam, or more probably
1. Bury, op. cit., pp. 481-4: Zlatarski, Izviestiya, pp. 49 ff. Istoriya, i., I, pp. 447–57 (a reply to
Bury’s objections to his Izviestiya suggestions).
2. Theophylact, Historia XV. Martyrum, pp. 193, 197.
3. Leo Grammaticus, pp. 231-2 (Βαλδίμερ): Logothete (Slavonic version), pp. 101–2 (Vladimir).
4. Villoison’s inscription, see above, p. 89.
5. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Administrando Imperio, p. 154.
294
Presian or Prusian (a well-known Bulgar name), [1] seems, therefore, to have been a definite
Khan, the—άνος of the Philippi inscription.
On this evidence, Bury and Zlatarski each formed his theory—and each supported it by his
interpretation of the Shumla inscription, an inscription which mentions Malamir. Zlatarski
rejected the ‘ ὁ ῥηθείς ’ reading in Theophylact, saying that, as Boris’s name had not yet been
mentioned, it cannot be ‘ ῥηθείς ’; Malamir was succeeded by his nephew, certainly, but that was
Presiam: while Boris, as Constantine says, was Presiam’s son. He took the sudden appearance of
Michael’s name in the story of Cordyles in A.D. 835–6 to indicate a change of Khan at that
point, Michael being a misprint for Presiam. With the additional aid of the Shumla inscription,
he thus built up a Khan Presiam who succeeded in 836.
Bury, however, accepted the ‘ ὁ ῥηθείς ’ reading— indeed, Zlatarski provides no adequate
substitute, and his complaint as to the name not having been mentioned savours of quibbling. He
showed that it is odd of Theophylact to ignore utterly a reign of some sixteen years— years
probably vital for the growth of Bulgarian Christianity—and to make so much of a reign of five
years, or at most ten years (Omortag might have died any time after 827); and he threw
reasonable doubt on the value of any argument based on the Logothete’s account. He also
disagreed with Zlatarski’s version of the Shumla inscription. His solution is that Malamir was
Presiam, but took the official and Slavonic name of Malamir about the year 847, just after the
Philippi inscription, which he agreed with Zlatarski in dating about that period. He explained
Constantine’s account of the Khan’s relationships by saying that Boris was adopted by Presiam
Malamir.
Zlatarski replied by reiterating his points, and showing up a weakness in Bury’s chronology.
Presiam must, in
1. Zlatarski (loc. cit.) easily shows that Presiam is more probably Presian.
295
Bury’s view, have changed his name between the Philippi and the Shumla inscriptions, that is to
say in 847; and all the inscriptions bearing the name of Malamir must be dated in the short
period 847-52. [1] Here, however, he is unfair; he only gave Malamir a reign of five years
himself. He also has difficulty in believing that any Khan took an ‘official’ name in the middle
of his reign.
But the main battle is over the Shumla inscription. [2] This, written (as both agree) about the
year 847, tells of a Khan’s invasion of Thrace with the Kavkan Isbules. After talking of ‘
Κροῦμος ὁ πάππα, μου, ’ and of how ‘my father Omortag’ made peace with the Greeks and lived
well (καλά) with them, it proceeds (line four, in the middle)
καὶ οἱ Γρικοὶ ἐρήμωσα
ὁ Μαλαμὶρ μετ(ὰ) τοῦ καυχάνου Ἠσβούλου ἐπ
. . . (αλα) . . . (εἰς) τοὺς γρίκοὺς τοῦ προβάτον το κασ
—and then proceeds to tell of obviously military operations, mentioning Isbules again in line
nine with a deleted passage earlier in the line. Zlatarski supplies ἔπαρχε as the last word of line
five. At the beginning of line six he says that after ‘αλα’ he can read ‘ε. . . ισεις, ’ and so supplies
‘ καλὰ ἔζησε εἰς. ’ He therefore presumes that Malamir, too, lived in peace, and the warlike
operations belong to a different Khan, i.e. Presiam. On the fascimile of the inscription in the
Aboba-Pliska Album (pi. xlv.) αλα and εις (the sign for ‘ ε ’ may also represent ‘ καὶ ’ ) are
clearly visible. But, if the rest of the letters that Zlatarski sees are correct, they must certainly be
completed in some other manner. Bury’s objections, I think, hold good: (i.) Malamir’s ‘ καλὰ
ἔζησε ’ would precede ‘ οἱ Γρικοὶ ἐρήμωσαν ’ which mark the opening of a war. (ii.) καλὰ ἔζησε
does not make sense with the words that certainly follow —Zlatarski’s emendation of them is
unconvincing. (iii.)
1. Actually there are only three—the Shumla, the aqueduct, and Tsepa’s memorial.
2. Aboba-Pliska, pp. 230 ff.
296
The mention of Isbules clearly implies military operations. All this, combined with the reference
to Krum as the Khan’s grandfather and Omortag as the Khan’s father, seems to make it certain
that the inscription was made by Malamir.
For this reason and for Bury’s reasons given above, I disbelieve in Zlatarski’s Khan Presiam,
who reigned from 836 to 852. There is another slight reason against it. Isbules, when he made
Malamir an aqueduct, is called ὅ παλαιὸς αὐτοῦ βοϊλᾶς, so presumably he was of some
considerable age, probably the doyen of the boyars. But, according to Zlatarski, the aqueduct
was built before 836; but in 847 onward Isbules went out on more than one campaign. I prefer to
think of him being allowed to retire when he was ‘ παλαιός ’ and not having to endure ten more
years’ active service.
But I am equally doubtful of an adoption by Khan Presiam of an official Slavonic name

Malamir. Rulers do not usually change their names in the middle of their reigns, except when,
like Boris, they adopt a new religion. This gesture towards his Slavonic subjects on the part of
the Khan makes an unconvincing story. The evidence for there having been any Khan called
Presiam seems to me to be thin. The Philippi inscription is of small account; there are other
words that end in ανος besides Presianos; the proper name does not always immediately precede
the title ‘ ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ ἀρχών. ’ The word might well be κάνας misspelt. Constantine’s evidence is
more important. But it is at complete variance with Theophylact’s, who never mentions Presiam.
Constantine was here writing Serbian history taken from Serbian sources; he never correlated
these passages with any work on Bulgarian history, a subject which he ignored. The Serbs, as yet
a backward race, might well mistake a splendid Bulgar general for the prince himself—and to
defeat the prince sounded far more impressive. Moreover, when the next prince invaded, they
would naturally assume him to be the son of the former invader. The presence of
297
Isbules’s name on both the war-inscriptions of the time implies that Malamir himself was not the
general of his armies; probably, in fact, he did not even accompany them. It is unlikely, I think,
that he should spend three years campaigning in Serbia. He left no son at a polygamous Court;
and so his health may well have been poor. I believe that Presiam was a high military officer of
the realm, a scion, probably, of the blood royal; but he was given a princely crown and a princely
son only in the ignorant imagination of the Serbs.
Appendices
Appendix IX
The Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets
The earliest Slavonic MSS. were not all written in one alphabet; but some employed the Cyrillic
alphabet, on which all the alphabets of the orthodox Slavs to-day are based, and others a more
complicated script known as Glagolitic, now only surviving in a few out-of-the-way villages in
Croatia. The question has often been raised as to which was the earlier and which was Saint
Cyril’s work.
Professor Minns has shown [1] that Saint Cyril, from a a pun that he made on a misprint in the
Hebrew version of Isaiah, must have known Hebrew—Snoj’s previous attempt to prove that he
knew Coptic must be accounted failure. [2] If he knew Hebrew it is easy to understand from
what source the Cyrillic letters were framed, for which the Greek alphabet was of no use: the
sole exceptions are a few vowel sounds which bear the air of an arbitrary invention. It seems,
therefore, unreasonable to
1. Minns, Saint Cyril Really Knew Hebrew, passim.
2. Snoj, Staroslovenski Matejev Evangelij, passim.
298
suppose that Cyril did not invent Cyrillic. But the whole question has been befogged by the
assumption, based chiefly on palimpsests, that Glagolitic must have been made before Cyrillic,
and by an earnest and somewhat uncalled-for longing to make it a development out of Greek or
Latin or Runic [1] — anything except a definitely and arbitrarily created alphabet. The priority
of Glagolitic has been also maintained because of a passage in a MS. life of Saint Clement, [2]
which said that Clement invented an alphabet different to Saint Cyril’s—Clement therefore
invented Cyrillic, it was said. But the authenticity of this passage is highly suspect.
We must consider the historical evidence. When the Moravians asked for a teacher, the Emperor
sent off Cyril, after an infinitesimal interval during which the saint apparently translated one of
the Gospels and made a lectionary, besides inventing the alphabet. But Cyril’s version of the
Bible is written, it is now universally agreed, in the dialect of the Macedonian Slavs, and both
alphabets, Cyrillic and Glagolitic, are adapted to suit that dialect. The only possible conclusion
that can be drawn is that Cyril, who was an enterprising philologist, had already been
experimenting with the Slavonic language in use round his home at Thessalonica, and had
evolved the Cyrillic alphabet for it. When he arrived in Moravia, he found that an alphabet so
closely akin to Greek met with powerful opposition; so he disguised it, reversing most of the
Greek letters, but retaining most of his invented letters, and he tidied it up into a vague
uniformity with a free use of loops. [3] From this it seems likely that the
1. Taylor and Jagić derive it from cursive Greek, Wessely (Glagolitisch-Lateinische Studien)
from cursive Latin. See references in Jagić, Grafika u Slavyan and Entstehungsgeschichte.
Cursive Latin is an unconvincing source, and Rahlfs (Zur Frage nach der Herkunft) has shown
cursive Greek to be historically impossible.
2. Found by Gregorowitz at Athos in 1825. It is generally recognized now as valueless.
3. I follow Minns’s explanation (op. cit.)—the only one that seems to employ common sense.
299
Imperial Government was already planning, with Cyril’s help, to evangelize the Balkan Slavs,
the Bulgarians probably as well as its own subjects, when unexpected events called the great
missionary farther afield, and altered the whole situation. [1]
In Bulgaria, Glagolitic MSS. are found dating from up to the thirteenth century, chiefly from the
Ochrida and Rila districts. Almost certainly Clement brought the alphabet with him from
Moravia; and, if there is any truth behind the interpolation in the Athos MS., it refers, not to his
invention of Cyrillic, but to his introduction of an alphabet that was different from what the local
inhabitants knew as Cyril’s. The Bulgarians educated at the Slavonic schools of Constantinople
would, however, obviously employ Cyrillic; which became the official alphabet used at Preslav
[2] — Khrabr’s treatise seems to refer to it, not to its rival—and which, from its greater
simplicity and suitability, succeeded in time in superseding Glagolitic— an alphabet whose only
merit was that it suited a particular political crisis.
1. Bruckner (Thesen zur Cyrillo-Methodianischen Frage, p. 219) pushes this theory to the extent
of rejecting Rostislav’s mission. Bury (op. cit., pp. 396–9) takes a more temperate view.
2. A few Glagolitic inscriptions too mutilated to read have

been unearthed at Preslav and Patleïna side by side with
Cyrillic inscriptions, but the latter are far more numerous.
Appendices
Appendix X
Symeon’s imperial marriage scheme
In the couse of Symeon’s second war with the Empire we hear of a marriage scheme of his to
unite his family with the Imperial family. The only two references to it are very vague, but they
show that it was
300
obviously a matter of great importance. Eutychius of Alexandria, writing, a few years later, a
short garbled account of Constantine VII’s minority, traced Symeon’s declaration of war to the
refusal by the Emperor, for whom his mother Zoe governed, to permit his sister to marry the
Bulgar monarch’s son, as Symeon desired. [1] In the winter of 920–1, when Romanus was firmly
on the throne, Nicholas wrote to Symeon reminding him that he had sought previously for a
marriage-alliance with the Emperor, but the Imperial Government of the time had refused it.
Now, he said, it was possible; Romanus was willing to marry either an Imperial prince to a
Bulgarian princess or vice versa. Nicholas laid great emphasis on the fact that Symeon could
now achieve his desire. But Symeon apparently ignored the proposal. His reply was to demand
Romanus’s deposition. [2]
Eutychius was almost certainly misinformed as to the persons whom it was proposed to marry.
Constantine’s only sister to survive childhood was his half-sister, the Augusta Anna, born well
before A.D. 892, whom Leo had crowned as a stop-gap Empress after her mother’s death, and
whom he had proposed in 898 to marry to Louis of Provence. This marriage did not take place,
but we hear no more of Anna; and this silence, considering the importance at the time of every
existing member of the Imperial family, justifies us in regarding her to have died soon
afterwards. It is scarcely possible that this princess was the object of Symeon’s eager
matrimonial suggestions. But apart, possibly, from her, there was only one unmarried member of
the Imperial family living in 913–9; that was the Emperor himself.
Symeon’s aim must therefore have been to marry the young Emperor to one of his daughters.
This is far more convincing; as father-in-law to the Emperor, he would be in a position from
which he might well reach the Imperial
1. Eutychius of Alexandria, Greek translation, p. 1151.
2. Nicholas Mysticus, ep. xvi, p. 112.
301
throne—just as Romanus, in fact, managed to do. And this would explain why he disdained
Nicholas’s proposals in 920–1. It was too late then; Constantine was already married—to Helena
Lecapena, and her father was Emperor. Symeon could only demand angrily that Romanus should
abdicate.
The question arises as to when Symeon put forward the proposal. The obvious occasion was his
interview with Nicholas in August 914; and probably his proposal was favourably received and
the marriage vaguely promised. Nicholas in his desire for peace would welcome rather than
reject it. But Zoe, the Emperor’s mother, would clearly hold other views. Her accession to power
was therefore an excuse for Symeon to return to arms. This would explain Nicholas’s silence on
the subject till it was a thing of the past; considering his own promise, and the refusal of the
Government that he was serving to countenance it, it would have embarrassed him to refer to it.
That, I think, is the meaning of these dark references to a marriage. Symeon planned to mount
the Imperial throne by first marrying his daughter to its occupant; and Nicholas half promised to
enable him to do so. It was only Zoe’s mother-love and the fact that the same idea had occurred
to the Grand Admiral that saved the Emperor and the Empire.
Appendices
Appendix XI
The peace of 927 and Peter’s title
We know that by the peace of 927 the Imperial Government agreed to recognize Peter of
Bulgaria as an Emperor (Βασίλεύς); Liudprand of Cremona was informed so by the Imperial
chancery when he complained of the precedence given to the Bulgarian embassy [1];
1. Liudprand, Legatio, p. 186.
302
and we are specifically told that Maria Lecapena rejoiced in that she was marrying an Emperor.
[1] There would be no difficulty about it, were it not for a passage in the De Ceremoniis. There,
among the formulae to be employed at the reception of foreign ambassadors, is one which refers
to the Emperor’s ‘spiritual grandson (πνευματικὸς ἔγγονος), the Prince (Ἀρχων) of Bulgaria,’
and there is none referring to the Bulgarian monarch as Basileus. A little lower, among the
formulae to be employed by the Emperors in addressing letters to foreign potentates, is one from
‘Constantine and Romanus, Emperors, to the Archon of the Bulgarians’; which is followed by
the remark that lately it has been written (τὸ ἀρτίως γραφόμενον) ‘Constantine and Romanus to
their spiritual son the Emperor of Bulgaria (τὸν κύριον ὁ δεἷνα βασιλέα Βουλγαρίας).’ [2] In the
former of these address-formulae the Emperor’s names have almost certainly been
interpolated—they must refer to Constantine Porphyrogennetus and Romanus II, who actually
only employed the second formula. But the phrase ‘spiritual grandson’ in the reception-formula
is not so easily explained away. If earthly generations are to be taken into account, the epithet
‘spiritual’ is incongruous; but there must be some meaning behind the word grandson.
Bury [3] suggested that the monarchs bound by this relationship were Leo VI and Symeon, son
of the Emperor’s godson Boris. But Boris’s godfather was Michael III; and why should
generations be taken into account on the Bulgarian, but not the Imperial, side? Rambaud [4]
sought the solution in a physical relationship; Peter was the grandson, through his wife, of
Romanus Lecapenus. The Imperial title must either only have
2. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Ceremoniis, pp. 681, 682, 690. There is also a reception-
formula calling the Archon of Bulgaria the Emperor’s spiritual son.
3. Bury, The Ceremonial Book, p. 226.
4. Rambaud, L’Empire Grec, pp. 340 ff.
303
been granted to him after Romanus’s fall, or Romanus must have taken it away from him.
Rambaud is, I think, right in insisting upon the physical relationship; and it is possible that
Romanus took the title away from Peter to mark his displeasure on some occasion, or, anyhow,
that he prepared a formula for use if he should wish to do so. But, from the fact that there is no
reception-formula calling Peter a Basileus, I incline to think that the ‘spiritual grandson’ formula
is a blend of two formulae, one dealing with the ‘spiritual son the Archon,’ the other with the
‘spiritual grandson the Basileus.’ The muddle only shows that the courtiers of Byzantium,
usually so punctilious, regarded the assumption of an Imperial title by any monarch outside the
Empire as being so ridiculous that they could treat it with disdainful negligence; and they never
bothered to record it systematically, nor took much notice of it, save when they wished to irritate
self-important ambassadors from the upstart West.
Appendices
Appendix XII
The chronology of the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas’s Bulgarian wars
The chronology of Nicephorus Phocas’s Bulgarian wars has often been muddled by historians’
persistent attempts to co-identify the accounts given by Leo Diaconus and by Scylitzes, who,
with ‘Nestor,’ are the only fundamental sources for them. Actually each chronicler deals mainly
with separate events. According to Leo, the Bulgarian embassy demanding tribute came to
Constantinople shortly after Nicephorus’s triumphant return from Tarsus (which took place in
October 965).
304
Nicephorus followed up his dismissal of it by making a demonstration over the frontier and
capturing one or two forts; he would not, however, embark on a serious campaign in Bulgaria. At
the same time he instituted diplomatic intrigues with the Russians, which he continued to keep
up. [1] Then Leo reverts to the main interest of the reign—the eastern campaigns. Later, after the
Russians invaded Bulgaria (in 967, according to ‘Nestor’), he sent an embassy to Bulgaria
suggesting the marriage of the Bulgar princesses to the young Emperors, and the Bulgarians
begged for Imperial help against the Russians. Nicephorus, however, went off to the East, and on
his return he was murdered. [2] In Scylitzes, who throughout the reign is clearly using some lost
independent source, we first find a paragraph telling that Peter, after his wife’s death, sent to
renew the peace and gave his sons to the Emperor as hostages; it then goes on to tell of his death
and of the Comitopuli—this part is certainly an interpolation. [3] Later we hear that, in June 967,
Nicephorus complained to the Bulgarian Court that it allowed Hungarian invaders to pass
through Bulgaria into the Empire; at the same time he marched to the frontier (to the Great
Fence) and looked into the defences of the Thracian cities. Shortly afterwards the Russians
invaded Bulgaria— Scylitzes here inserts an account of Calocyras’s mission —in August 968
(Indiction XL), and they came again next year. [4]
From another source, however (Liudprand, Legatio, p. 185), we know that there was a Bulgarian
embassy in Constantinople in June 968. This must have been after the Russian invasion;
therefore ‘Nestor’s’ date, rather than Scylitzes’s, must be correct. The invasion no doubt lasted
into September 967, i.e. the Indiction XL; and Scylitzes muddled the Indictions.
The key to the chronology lies in the fact—which
1. Leo Diaconus, pp. 61–3.
2. Ibid., pp. 77-81.
4. Ibid., p. 37a.
305
neither Leo nor Scylitzes singly makes clear—that Nicephorus twice declared war; in 965 he was
furious at the Bulgarians’ demands; in 967 he simply wished for a pretext to justify him in
calling in the Russians. Briefly tabulated, the sequence of events is as follows:
965 (after October): Bulgarian embassy to Constantinople demanding tribute (Leo). It was just
after the Tsaritsa’s death (Scylitzes).
966 (early spring): Nicephorus invades Southern Bulgaria (Leo), (soon afterwards): Peter asks
for peace and sends his sons as hostages (Scylitzes).
966 onwards: Calocyras intrigues with the Russians (Leo and Scylitzes).
967 (June): Russians being ready, Nicephorus picks a quarrel with the Bulgarians, and fortifies
his frontier lest the Russians should penetrate too far (Scylitzes).
967 (August): Russians invade Bulgaria (‘Nestor,’ Scylitzes, and Leo). Peter falls ill (Leo).
968 (late spring): Renewed Russian invasion (Scylitzes—a year after the previous invasion).
(June): Bulgarian embassy to Constantinople (Liud-prand). It is ineffectual.
969 (January): Death of Peter. (in the course of the year): Calocyras’s treachery becomes
evident. So (autumn): Nicephorus sends embassy to Bulgaria suggesting a marriage alliance. It is
about the time of the capture of Antioch, i.e. October 969 (Leo). Fresh Russian invasion
(‘Nestor’ and Leo).
(December): Death of Nicephorus.
Thenceforward the chronology presents no great difficulty, and we can read without hindrance of
the wars that overwhelmed the First Bulgarian Empire.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations
Note—I have not attempted to cite every modern work that touches on the history of the First
Bulgarian Empire, but have restricted myself to those works that I have consulted and consider
to be of interest and value. Further bibliographies are given by Zlatarski (Istoriya, i., 1 & 2), and
Dvornik (op. cit. below). I have not been able to consult works published since the end of 1929.
With regard to the Greek original sources, I have referred where possible to the editions in the
Bonn Corpus, as being the most easily obtainable. The text of Theophanes, however, has been
revised by De Boor (Leipzig, 1883), whose edition should be consulted on all doubtful passages.
I make use of the following abbreviations:
A.S.P.: Archiv fur Slavische Philologie, Leipzig, 1879 ff.
B.P.: Bulgarski Priegled, Sofia, 1894 ff.
B.Z.: Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Leipzig, 1892 ff.
C.S.H.B.: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinorum, Bonn, 1828-97.
I.A.D.S.: Izviestiya na Arkheol. Druzhestvo ν Sofia, Sofia, 1911 ff.
I.B.A.I.: Izviestiya na Bulgarskoto Arkheol. Institut, Sofia, 1924 ff.
I.I.D.S.: Izviestiya na Istoricheskoto Druzhestvo ν Sofia, Sofia, 1907 ff.
I.R.A.I.K.: Izviestiya Russkago Arkheolog. Instituta ν Konstantinopolie, Constantinople, 1895 ff.
I.R.Y.S.: Izviestiya Otdieleniya Russkago Yazyka i Slovesnosti Petrogradskoy Akad. Nauk,

Petrograd, 1897 ff.
M.G.H.: Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Ss.= scriptores; a.a.:= auctores antiquissimi),

Hanover, 1826 ff.
307
308
M.P.G.: Migne, J. P., Patrologia Graeco-Latina, Paris, 1857-66.
M.P.L.: Idem, Patrologia Latina, Paris, 1844-55.
M.S.H.S.M.: Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, Zagreb, 1868 ff.
R.E.S.: Revue des Etudes Slaves, Paris, 1921 ff.

S.B.A.N.: Spisanie na Bulgarskata Akad. na Naukitie, Sofia, 1911 ff.
S.N.U.K.: Sbornik za Narodni Umotvoreniya i Knizhnina, Sofia, 1885 ff.
S.R.H.: Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum, Vienna, 1746.
S.V.Z.: Sbornik ν chest na Vasil N. Zlatarski, Sofia, 1925.
S.Y.D.: Spisanie na Yuridicheskoto Druzhestvo, Sofia, 1901 ff.
V.V.: Vizantiiski Vremmenik, Petrograd, 1894 ff.
Z.M.N.P.: Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosvieshcheniya, Petrograd.
Z.R.A.O.: Zapiski Russkago Arkheol. Obshchestva, Petrograd, 1885 ff.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ORIGINAL SOURCES
A. GREEK
B. LATIN
C. ORIENTAL
D. SLAVONIC
A. GREEK
Agathias, Historiae, C.S.H.B.
Anna Comnena, Alexias, C.S.H.B.
Attaliates, Michael, Historia, C.S.H.B.

Basil II, Emperor, Sigillia ad Archiepiscopum Ochridensem, edited in Gelzer, B.Z. vol. ii., pp.
42-6.
Cameniates, Joannes, De Excidio Thessalonicae, C.S.H.B.
Cecaumenus, Strategicon, ed. W. Wassiewsky and V. Jernstedt. St. Petersburg, 1896.
Cedrenus, Georgius, Compendium Historiarum, C.S.H.B.
Chronicon Paschale, C.S.H.B.
Codinus, Georgius, De Officiis, C.S.H.B.
309
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetus, Emperor, De Ceremoniis, C.S.H.B.
— De Thematibus et De Administrando Imperio, C.S.H.B.
Ecloga Leonis et Constantini, ed. Monfereatus. Athens, 1889.
Encomium ad sanctum patrem nostrum Photium Tkessalum, ed. Vasilievski, Z.M.N.P., pt.
ccxlviii., pp. 100-1.
Epistola Synodica Orientalium ad Theophilum Imperatorem, M.P.G., vol. xcv.

Euthymius Zigabenus Patriarcha, Opera, M.P.G., vol. cxxx.
Evagrius, Historia Ecclesiastica, M.P.G., vol. lxxxvi.
Genesius, Historia, C.S.H.B.
Georgius Acropolita, Historia, ed. Heisenberg. Leipzig, 1903.
Georgius (Hamartolus) Monachus, Chronicon, ed. de Boor. Leipzig, 1904.
Georgius Monachus Continuatus, Chronicon, C.S.H.B.
Ignatius Diaconus, Vita Nicephori, appendix to Nicephorus, Opuscula Historica.
Joannes Antiochenus, Fragmenta, ed. Muller, in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. iv.,
pp. 535-622. Paris, 1885.
Joannes Geometrus, Carmina, M.P.G., vol. cvi.
Leo Diaconus, Historia, C.S.H.B.
Leo Grammaticus, Historia, C.S.H.B.

Leo VI Sapiens Imperator, Opera, M.P.G., vol. cvii.
Leo Magister, Anthypatus Patricius, Epistolae, ed. Sakkelion, in Deltion, vol. i., pp. 377-410.
Athens, 1883.
Liber de Re Militari, Incerti Scriptoris Byzantini Saeculi X, ed. Vari. Leipzig, 1901.
Malalas, Joannes, Chronographia, M.P.G., vol. xcvii.
Menander Protector, Fragmenta, ed. Dindorf, in Historici Graeci Minores, vol. ii., pp. 1-131.
Leipzig, 1871.
310
Menologion Imperatoris Basilii, M.P.G., vol. cxvii.
Miracula Sancti Demetrii Martyris, M.P.G., vol. cxvi.
Nicephorus Patriarcha, Opuscula Historica, ed. de Boor. Leipzig, 1870.
Nicetas Acominatus, Chronica, C.S.H.B.

Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarcha, Epistolae, M.P.G., vol. cxi.
Petrus Siculus, Historia Manichaeorum, M.P.G., vol. civ.
Photius Patriarcha, Opera, M.P.G., vols. ci.-iv.
Priscus, Fragmenta, ed. Dindorf, in Historici Graeci Minores, vol. ii., pp. 275-352. Leipzig,
1870.
Procopius, Opera, C.S.H.B.
Psellus, Michael, Chronographia, ed. Sathas. London, 1899.
Romanus I Lecapenus Imperator, Epistolae, ed. Sakkelion, in Deltion, vol. i., pt. 4. Athens, 1884.
Scriptor Incertus, De Leone Armenio, C.S.H.B.
Scylitzes, Joannes, Historia, copied in Cedrenus, C.S.H.B.
Suidas, Lexicon, ed. Gaisford. Oxford, 1834.
Symeon Magister (pseudo-Symeon), Chronicon, C.S.H.B.

Theodorus Studites, Parva Catechesis, ed. Auvray. Paris, 1891.
Theodosius Melitenus, Chronographia, ed. Tafel. Munich, 1859.
Theophanes, Chronographia, C.S.H.B. (revised text, ed. de Boor. Leipzig, 1883).
Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, C.S.H.B.
Theophylactus, Archiepiscopus Bulgarus, Historia Martyrii XV. Martyrum, M.P.G., vol. cxxvi.
Theophylactus Patriarcha, Epistola ad Petrum Regem Bulgariae, ed. Petrovski, I.R.Y.S., vol.
xviii, 6 K. 3, pp. 361-72.
Vita S. Euthymii, ed. de Boor. Berlin, 1888.
Vita S. Lucae Junioris, M.P.G., vol. iii.
311
Vita S. Lucae Stylitis, ed. Vanderstuyf, Patrologia Orientalis, vol. xi.
Vita S. Mariae Novae, ed. Gedeon, in Byzanticon Heortologion. Constantinople, 1899.

Vita S. Niconis Metanoeite, ed. Lampros, in Neos Hellenomnemon, vol. iii., pp. 131-223.
Athens, 1906.
Vita S. Petri Argivi, ed. Costa.-Luzzi, in Novae Patrum Bibliothecae ab Card. Maii, pt. iii., ix.
Vita Theodorae Augustae, ed. Regel, in Analecta Byzantino-Russica. St. Petersburg, 1891.
Zonaras, Joannes, Epitome Historiarum, C.S.H.B.
Zosimus, Historia, C.S.H.B.
B. LATIN
Adrianus II Papa, Epistolae, M.P.L., vol. cxxii.
Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Historia de Vitis Romanorum Pontificorum, M.P.L., vol. cxxviii.
— Praefatio in Synodum VIII, M.P.L., vol. cxxix.
Annales Bertiniani, pars II. Prudentii, pars III. Hincniari, M.G.H., Ss., vol. i.
Annales Fuldenses, M.G.H., Ss., vol. i.
Annales Hildesheimenses, M.G.H., Ss., vol. iii.

Annales Laurissenses, M.G.H., Ss., vol. i.
Annales Quedlinburgenses, M.G.H., Ss., vol. iii.
Annales Weissenburgenses, M.G.H., Ss., vol. iii.
Annalista Saxo, Annales, M.G.H., Ss., vol. viii.
Astronomus, Vita Hludowici, M.G.H., Ss., vol. ii.
Cassiodorus. Variae, M.G.H., a.a., vol. xii.
Dandolo, Chronicum Venetum, in Muratori, Scriptores Rerum Italicarum, vol. xii.
Diocleae Presbyter, De Regno Slavorum, in Lucius, De Regno Dalmatiae.
Einhardus, Annales, M.G.H., Ss., vol. i.
— Vita Caroli Imperatoris, M.G.H., Ss., vol. ii.
312
Ekkehardus, Chronicon Universale, M.G.H., Ss., vol. iv.

Ennodius, Panegyricus Regi Theodorico, M.G.H., a.a., vol. vii.
Fredegarius Scholasticus, Chronica, M.G.H., Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum, vol. ii.
Gesta Dagoberti I, M.G.H., Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum, vol. ii.
Herimannus Augiensis, Chronica, M.G.H., Ss., vol. iv.
Innocentius III Papa, Epistolae, M.P.L., vols, ccxiv.-xv.
Johannes VIII Papa, Epistolae, M.G.H., Ep., vol. vii.
Jordanes, Romana et Getica, M.G.H., a.a., vol. v.
Liudprandus Cremonensis, Opera, ed. Bekker. Hanover, 1915.
Lupus Protospatharius, Chronicon, in Muratori, op. cit., vol. v.

Manegoldus, Ad Gebehardum Liber, M.G.H., Ss., vol. i.
Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, M.G.H., a.a., vol. xi.
Monachus Sangallensis, De Gestis Karoli Imperatons, M.G.H., Ss., vol. ii.
Nicolaus I Papa, Epistolae, M.G.H., Ep., vol. vi.
— Responsa, ibid.
Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardarum, M.P.H., Scriptores Rerum Langobardarum.
Ranzanus, Petrus, Indices, in S.R.H.
Reginonis Chronicon, M.G.H., Ss., vol. i.
Restius, Georgius, Chronica Ragusina, in M.S.H.S.M., Ss., vol. ii. Zagreb, 1893.
Sigebertus, Chronographia, M.P.H., Ss., vol. viii.
Stephanus V Papa, Epistolae, M.P.L., vol. cxxix.

Thwrocz, Joannes de, Historia, in S.R.H.
313
C. ORIENTAL
Asoghic, Stephen, Histoire Universelle, trans. Dulaurier et Macler. Paris, 1883.
Al-Makin, Histoire Mahométane, trans. Vattier. Paris, 1657·
Eutychius of Alexandria, Annales, trans. Pocock, in M.P.G., vol. iii.
Ibn-Foszlan, De Bulgaris, trans. Fraehn. St. Petersburg, 1822.
John of Ephesus, Historia Ecclesiastica, vol. ii., trans. Schönfelder, Die Kirchengeschichte des
Johannes von Ephesus. Munich, 1862. Unedited extracts, trans. Nau, in Revue de l’Orient
Chrétien, vol. ii. Paris, l897.
John of Nikiou, Chronique, ed. and trans. Zotenberg. Paris, 1883.
Maçoudi, Les Prairies d’Or, trans. Barbier de Meynard. Paris, 1861.
Matthew of Edessa, Chronique, trans. Dulaurier, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades,
Documents Arméniens, vol. i. Paris, 1869.
Michael the Syrian, Chronique, trans. Chabot. Paris, 1899–1910.
Vartan, called the Great, Vseobshchaya Istoriya, trans. Emin. St. Petersburg, 1864.
Yachya of Antioch, Historie, trans, (up to A.D. 976) Krachkovski et Vasiliev, in Patrologia
Orientalis, vol. xviii. Paris, 1924. Also extracts in Rozen, Imperator Vasili Bolgaroboïtsa (see
below).
314
D. SLAVONIC
Bulgarian Princes’ List, facsimiles of MSS. in Zlatarski, Istoriya, i., i, pp. 379–82.
Chudo Sv. Georgiya, ed. Loparev. St. Petersburg, 1894.
Gregori Presbiter, preface to the Chronicle of Malalas, in Kalaïdovitch, Ioann Eksarkh.
John the Exarch, Shestodniev, in Miklosich, Chrestomathia Palaeoslovenica. Vienna, 1861.
Khrabr, O Pismenikh, in Kalaïdovitch, op. cit.
Konstantin, Bulgarian bishop, Proglas, in Ivanov, Bulgarski Starini, pp. 72-4.

Kozma, Slovo Kozmy, ed. Popruzhenko. St. Petersburg, 1907.
‘Nestor,’ La Chronique dite de Nestor, ed. and trans. Léger. Paris, 1884.
Simeon Logothet, Khronika, ed. Sreznevski. St. Petersburg, 1905.
Sinodik Tsarya Borisa, ed. Popruzhenko. Odessa, 1899.
Tudor Doksov, Pripiska, ed. Gorski i Nevustroev. Moscow, 1859.
Vita Constantini, in Pastrnek, Dejiny Slovanskych Apostolu.
Vita Methodii, in Pastrnek, op. cit.
Zhitiya Sv. Nauma Okhridskago, ed. Lavrov, I.R.Y.S., vol. xii., bk. iv. (1908).
Zhivot Jovana Rilskog, ed. Novakovitch, in Glasnik Srbskog Uchenog Drushtva, bk. xxii.
Belgrade, 1867.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MODERN WORKS
Abicht, R., Der Angriff der Bulgaren auf Konstantinopel im J. 896, A.S.P., vol. xvii.
315
Aboba-Pliska: Materialy dlya Bolgarskikh Drevnostei, I.R.A.I.K., vol. x.
Anastasijevič, D.N., Hipoteza o gapadnoj Bugarskoj, Glasnik. Skopskog Nauchnog Drushtva,

vol. iii. Skopie, 1928.
Antony, Archbishop, Iz Istorii Khristianskoi Propoviedi. St. Petersburg, 1895.
Avril, A. d’, Saint-Cyrille et Saint-Méthode. Paris, 1885.
Balaschev, G., Bulgaritie prez Poslednitie Desetgodishnini na Desetiya Viek. Sofia, 1929.
— Klement Slovienski. Sofia, 1898.
— Novyya Dannyya dlya Istorii Greko-bolgarskikh Boin pri Simeonie, I.R.A.I.K., vol. iv.
— Otgovor to Mutafchev’s review (see below) of Bulgar itie prez Poslednitie etc. Sofia 1929
Banescu, N., Bulgarie et Paristrion, in Bulletin de la Section Historique de l’Academie

Roumaine. Bucarest, 1923.
Bees, Ν. Α., Epidromai Boulgaron epi Tsaron Symeon Hellenikon, vol. i. Athens, 1928.
Blagoev, N., Besedata na Presbiter Kozma protiv Bogomilite, Godishnik na Sofiiskiya

Universitet, vol. xviii. Sofia, 1905 ff.
— Krumovi zakoni, S.Y.D., vol. iv.
— Pravni i Sotsialni Vzgledi na Bogomilite. Sofia, 1912.

Bobchev, S. S., Bulgaria under Tsar Simeon, S.R., vols. vii. and viii., Nos. 21, 22.
— Znachenieto za Bulgariya na Sv. Ivan Rilski, in Godishnik na Svobodniya Universitet, vol. i.

Sofia, 1922.
— Nachträge zu den Notitiae Episcopatuum, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, vols. xii. and xiv.
Gotha, 1891-4. Boor, C. de, Vita Euthymii. Berlin, 1888.
— Zu Johannes Skylitzes: Weiteres zur Chronik des Skylitzes, B.Z., vols. xiii. and xiv.
Brehier, L., Les Missions Chrétiennes chez les Slaves au IX Siècle, Monde Slave, vol. iv. Paris,
1927.
Brooks, E. W., The Age of Basil I, B.Z., vol. xxi.
— The Chronology of Theophanes, B.Z., vol. viii.
316
Brückner, Α., Thesen zur Cyrillo-Methodianischen Frage, A.S.P., vol. xxviii.
Bury, J. B., History of the Eastern Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene. London, 1889.
— History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 802-67. London, 1912.
— History of the Later Roman Empire. London, 1923.
— The Bulgarian Treaty of A.D. 814, English Historical Review, vol. xxv. London, 1910.
— The Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogennetus, ibid., vol. xxii. London, 1907.
— The Chronological Cycle of the Bulgarians, B.Z., vol. xix.
— The Treatise De Administrando Imperio, B.Z., vol. xv.

Cambridge Mediaeval History, The, vols, i., ii., and iv. Cambridge, 1911, 1913, 1923.
Conybeare, F. C, The Key of Truth. Oxford, 1898.
Diehl, C., Choses et Gens de Byzance. Paris, 1926.
— Figures Byzantines. Paris, 1906.
Drinov, M. S., Istoricheski Priegled na Bulgarskata Tsurkva. Sofia, 1911.
— Novy Tserkovno-Slavyanski Pamyatnik, Z.M.N.P., pt. ccxxxviii.
— Yuzhnye Slavyane i Vizantiya ν X Viekie. Moscow, 1875.
Ducange, C. du F., Familiae Augustae Byzantinae. Paris, 1680.
Duchesne, L., Les Premiers Temps de l’État Pontifical. Paris, 1911.
Dümmler, L., Über die Aelteste Geschichte der Slawen in Dalmatien. Vienna, 1856.
Dvornik, F., Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX. Siècle. Paris, 1926.
Farlati, D., Illyricum Sacrum. Venice, 1751.
Feher, B., Bulgarisch-Ungarische Beziehungen in dem V.-XI. Jahrhunderten. Budapest, 1921.
— Vliyanie na Bulgarskata Tsurkva v Madzharsko, S.V., vol. ii.

317
Ficker, G., Die Phundagiagiten. Leipzig, 1908.
Finlay, G., History of Greece. Oxford, 1877.
Gay, J., L’ltalie Maridionale et l’Empire Byzantin. Paris, 1904.
Gelzer, H., Der Patriarchat von Achrida. Leipzig, 1902.
— Ungedruckte und Ungenügend Veroffentliche Texte der Notitiae Episcopatuum, B.Z., vols. i.
and ii.
Gibbon, E., Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Bury (with appendices). London, 1909-
14.
Gilferding, Α., Istoria Serbov i Bolgar. St. Petersburg, 1868.
Golubinski, E., Kratki Ocherk Istorii Pravoslavnykh Tserkvey. Moscow, 1871.
Gospodinov, Y. S., Razkopki v Patleïna. Sofia, 1915.
Grot, K., Konstantin Bagranorodny o Serbakh i Khorvatakh. St. Petersburg, 1882.

Hergenröther, J., Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel. Ratisbon, 1867-9.
Hirsch, F., Byzantinische Studien. Leipzig, 1876.
— Kaiser Konstantin VII. Porphyrogennetos. Berlin, 1873.
Howorth, H., The Spread of the Slavs: Pt. iv., The Bulgarians. Journal of the Anthropological
Institute, vol. ii. London, 1882.
Hubert, H., Observations sur la Chronologie de Theophane, B.Z., vol. vi.
Ilniski, G. Α., Gramoty Bolgarskikh Tsarey. Moscow, 1911.
— Kto byl Chernorizets Khrabr? Vizantiskoe Obozrienie. vol. iii. Yuriev, 1917.
Ivanov, I., Aksios-Velika-Vardar, Makedonski Pregled, vol. i. Sofia, 1925.
— Bogomilski Knigi i Legendi. Sofia, 1925.
— Bulgarski Starini iz Makedoniya. Sofia, 1908.
— Proizkhod na Tsar Samuiloviya Rod, S.V.Z.
— Sv. Ivan Rilski. Sofia, 1917.
318
Jagič, V., Cyrillo-Methodiana, A.S.P., vol. xxviii.
— Entstehungsgeschichte der Kirchenslavischen Sprache (2nd ed.). Berlin, 1913.
— Grafika u Slavyan, Entsiclopediya Slavyanskoi Filologii. St. Petersburg, 1911.

Jireček, C, Archäologische Fragmente aus Bulgarien, Archäolog. Epigraph., vol. x. Vienna,

Mitteilungen aus Oesten Ungarn, 1888.
— Das Fürstentum Bulgarien. Prague, 1891.
— Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Konstantinopel. Prague, 1877.
— Geschichte der Bulgaren. Prague, 1876.
— Geschichte der Serben. Gotha, 1911.
Jorga, N., Formes Byzantines et Realités Balkaniques. Paris, 1922.
— Le Danube d’Empire, in Mélanges offerts à G. Schlumberger. Paris, 1925.
— Les Plus Anciens Etats Slavo-Roumains, R.E.S., vol. v.
Kalaïdovitch, K., Ioann Eksarkh Bolgarski. Moscow, 1824.
Khvolson, D., Izviestiya o Khazarakh i t.d. Ibn Dasta. St. Petersburg, 1869.
Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur. Munich, 1897.
Katsarov, G., Die Gesetzgebung des Bulgarischen Fürsten Krum, B.Z., vol. xvi.
Kuun, G., Relationum Hungarorum cum Oriente Historia Antiquissima. Claudiopolis, 1897.
Kuznetsov, I., Pismata na Lva Magistra i Romana Lacapina, S.B.U., vols. xvi. and xvii.
Lampros, S., Historia tes Hellados. Athens, 1898.
Laurent, J., Sul Libro II. dei Miracula S. Demetrii Martyris, Bessarione, vol. iv.
Lavrin, J., The Bogomil Heresy, S.R., vol. viii., No. 23.
Lavrov, P. Α., Nova Sluzhba Tsary Bugarskome Petru, Juzhnoslovenski Philolog, vol. i.
Belgrade, 1913.
319
Léger, L., Cyrille et Méthode. Paris, 1868.
— La Bulgarie. Paris, 1885.
— La Litterature Bulgare au Moyen Âge, Revue des Cours Littéraires, vol. vi. Paris, 1869.
— L’Hérésie des Bogomiles, Revue des Questions Historiques, vol. viii. Paris, 1870.
Le Quien, M., Oriens Christianus. Paris, 1740.
Lombard, Α., Constantin V, Empereur des Remains. Paris, 1902.
Loparev, K. M., Dvie Samietki po Drevney Bolgarskqy Istorii, Z.R.A.O., vol. iii.
Lucius, J., Re Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae. Amsterdam, 1666.
Luttich, R., Ungarnzuge in Europa im 10 Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1910.

Malyshevski, I., Svyatye Kirill i Methodi. Kiev, 1886.
Marquart, J., Die Altbulgarische Ausdrücke in der Inschrift von Catalar, I.R.A.I.K., vol. xv.
— Die Chronologie der Alttürkischen Inschriften. Leipzig, 1893.
— Osteuropäische und Ostasiatische Streifzüge. Leipzig, 1903.
Mazon, Α., Le Moine Chrabe et Cyrille, S.V.Z.
Mikkola, J. J., Die Chronologie der Turkischen Donaubulgaren, Journal de la Societe Finno-
Ongrienne, vol. xxx. Helsingfors, 1914.
— Tyurksko-Bolgarskoe Lietoschislenie, I.R.Y.S., vol. xviii.
Miklosich, F., Chrestomathia Palaeoslovenica. Vienna, 1861.
Miletich, L., Km Samuilotiya Nadpis ot 993 God, I.R.A.I.K., vol. iv.
Milev, N., Kubrat ot Istoriyata i Kuber ν Chudesita na Sv. Dimitriya, in Bulgarskoto Knizhovno
Druchestvo, Spisanie, bk. lxxi.
Miller, W., The First Bulgarian Empire, in the Cambridge Mediaeval History (see above), vol.
iv.
Minns, Ε. Η., Saint Cyril Really Knew Hebrew, in Mélanges publiés en l’honneur de M. Paul
Boyer. Paris, 1925.
320
Muralt, Ε. de, Essai de Chronographie Byzantine. St. Petersburg, 1855.
Muratori, L. Α., Rerum Italicarum Scriptores. Milan, 1723-51.
Mutafchev, P., review of Balaschev, Bulgaritie prez Poslednitie etc., in Makedonski Priegled,
vol. v., bk. ii. Sofia, 1929
Niederle, L., Slovanské Starozitnosti. Prague, 1906.
Novakovitch, S., Legenda o Vladimiru i Kosari. Belgrade, 1893.
Palauzov, S. N., Viek Bolgarskago Tsarya Simeona. St. Petersburg, 1852.
Panaret, Archimandrite, Zhivotut na Ivana Eksarkha. Stanimaka, 1914.
Pastrnek, F., Dejiny Slovanskych Apostolu Cyrilla a Methoda. Prague, 1902.
Platonov, N. V., Patriarkh Photii. Moscow, 1891.
Popov, Ν. Α., Imperator Liev Mudry. Moscow, 1892.

Prokič, B., Jovan Skilitsa. Belgrade.
— Die Zusätze in der Handschrift des Johannes Skylitzes. Munich, 1906.
Rački, F., Bogomili i Patereni. Zagreb, 1869-70.
— Documenta Historiae Croaticae Periodum Antiquam Illustrantia, M.S.H.S.M., vol. vii.

Zagreb, 1877.
Rambaud, Α., L’Empire Grec au Xme Siècle. Paris, 1870.
Rapoport, S., On the Early Slavs, The Narrative of Ibrahim Ibn Yakub, S.R., vol. viii., No. 23.
Rozen, V. P., Imperator Vasili Bolgaroboitsa. St. Petersburg, 1883.
Rösler, R., Rumanische Studien. Leipzig, 1871.
Runciman, S., The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus. Cambridge, 1929.
Safarik, F., Slovanské Starožitnosti. Prague, 1837.
321
Schlumberger, G., L’Epopée Byzantine à la Fin du Xme Siècle. Paris, 1896-1905.
— Sigillographie de l’Empire Byzantin. Paris, 1884.

— Un Empereur Byzantin au Xme Siècle. Paris, 1890.
Shkorpil, K., Bieliezhki za Starata Bulgarska Stolitsa Preslav, I.A.D.S., vol. iv.
— Pametnitsi iz Bulgarsko, I Trakia. Sofia, 1888.
— Purvata Bulgarska Stolitsa do Aboba. Varna, 1901.
— Starobulgarski Pametnitsi, in Dobrudzha. Sofia, 1918.
Shopov, Α., Edin Dokument za Bulgarskata Istoriya, S.N.U.K., bk. ii.
Šišič, F., Geschichte der Kroaten. Zagreb, 1917.
— Prirucnik Izvora Hevatske Historije. Zagreb, 1916.
Snoj, Staroslovenski Matejev Evangelij. Ljubljana, 1922.
Snopek, F., Die Slavenapostel. Kremsier, 1918.
Sobolevski, A. I., Cherkovno Slavyanskitie Stikhotvoreniya, V., IX.-X. Viek, S.N.U.K., bks.
xvi.-xvii.
— Episkop Konstantin, S.N.U.K., bk. xviii.
Sokolov, M., Iz Drevney Istorii Bolgar. St. Petersburg, 1879.
Tafel, T., De Thessalonica Ejusque Agro. Berlin, 1839.
Tougard, S., De l’Histoire Profane dans l’Actes Grecs des Bollandistes. Paris, 1874.
Trifonov, I., Besieda na Kozma Presbitera, S.B.A.N., bk. xxx.
Tunitski, N. L., Sv. Clement Episkop Slovenski. Sirgiev Posad, 1913.
Uspenski, F. I., Nadpis Tsarya Simeonie, I.R.A.I.K., vol. iv.
— Pogranichnyi Stolb mezhdu Vizantiei i Bolgariei pri Simeonie, I.R.A.I.K., vol. iii.
— Rusi Vizantiya v Χ Viekie. Odessa, 1888.
— Staro-bolgarskaya Nadpis Omortaga, I.R.A.I.K., vol. iii.
Vasiliev, Α. Α., Arabski Sinaksar o Bolgarskom Pokhodis Imperatora Nikifora, in Novoi Sbornik
ν chest V. I. Lamanskago. St. Petersburg, 1905.
— History of the Byzantine Empire. Madison, 1928.
322
Vasiliev, Α. Α., Istoriya Vizantii. Petrograd, 1917.
— Proiskhozhdenie Imperatora Vasiliya Makedonyanina, V.V., vol. xii.
— Slavyane ν Gretsii, V.V., vol. v.
— Vizantiya i Araby. St. Petersburg, 1900, 1902.
Vasilievsky, V. G., K. Istorii 976-986 Godov, Z.M.N.P., pt. clxxxiv.
— Khronika Logoteta na Slavyanskom i Grecheskom, V.V., vol. ii.

— Ο Mnemon Slavyanstvie Gunnov, Ζ.Μ.Ν.Ρ., pp. 222, 226.
— Odin iz Grecheskikh Sbornikov Moskov. Sinod. Biblioteki, Z.M.N.P., pt. ccxxviii.
— Soviety i Razkazy Vizantiiskago Boyarina XI. Vieka, Z.M.N.P., pt. ccxii.
Vogt, Α., Basile I, Empereur de Byzance. Paris, 1908.
Vondrak, V., Zur Frage nacn der Herkunft des Glagolitischen Alphabets, A.S.P., vols, xviii. and
xix.
Wessely, C., Glagolitisch-Lateinische Sprache. Leipzig, 1913.
Westberg, F., Ibrâhim’s Ibn Ja’kûb’s Reisebericht über die Slawenlande. St. Petersburg, 1898.
Zachariae von Lingenthal, Κ. Ε., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Bulgarischen Kirche. St.
Petersburg, 1864.
Zlatarski, V. N., Bulgarski Arkhiepiskopi-Patriarsi priez Pervoto Tsarstvo, I.I.D.C., bk. vi.
— Dva Izviestny Bulgarski Nadpisa, S.N.U.K., bk. xv.
— Die se Namiral Grad Dievol, I.I.D.G., bk. v.
— Die Bulgarische Zeitrechnung, Journal de la Societé Finno-Ongrienne, vol. xl. Helsingfors,

1924.
— Istoriya na Bulgarskata Durzhava. Sofia, 1918, 1929.
— Izviestiyata za Bulgaritie ν Khronikata na Simeona Metaprasta, S.N.U.K., bk. xxiv.
— Izviestieto na Mikhaila Siriiski za Prieselenieto na Bulgaritie, I.I.D.C., bk. iv.
— Izviestieto na Ibrahim-ibn-Yakuba, S.B.A.N., vol. xxii.

— Koi e bil Tudor Chernorizets Doksov, B.P., bk. iii.
— Koi za bili Vâtrieshni i Vunshni Bolyari, in Univ. Sbornik v chest Bobchev. Sofia, 1921.
323
Zlatarski, V. Ν., Kum Istoriyata na Otkritiya ν Misstnostata Patleina Munastir, I.B.A.I., bk. i.
— Novi Izviestiya za Nai Drevniya Period na Bulg. Istoriya, S.N.U.K., bk. ii.
— Pervy Pokhod Simeona na Konstantinopol, in Recueil d’Études dediées à M. Kondakov.

Prague, 1926.
— Pismata na Nikolaya Mistika do Simeona, S.N.U.K., bks. x.-xii.
— Pismata na Romana Lacapina do Simeona, S.N.U.K., bk. xiii.
— Poslanie na Photiya do Borisa v Slavienski Prievod, B.S., bk. v.
— The Making of Bulgaria, S.R., vol. iv., Nos.
Index
__A_ — __B_ — __C_ — __D_ — __E_ — __F_ — __G_ — __H_ — __I_ —

__J_ — __K_ — __L_ — __M_ — __N_ — __O_ — __P_ — __Q_ — __R_ —
__S_ — __T_ — __U_ — __V_ — __W_ — __X_ — __Y_ — __Z_
Note : Except in the case of princes and prelates, where a definite surname, not merely a title, is
known, the person is given under the surname.
A.
Aachen, 82, 151
Aaron, Comitopulus, rise to power, 217-9; death, 230—1; 224, 244
Aaron, Prince, son of John Vladislav, 257
Abasgians, 124
Abodriti, 81—2
Abroleba, 49
Abydos, 238
Achelous, battle, 161, 162
Achilleus, Saint, 222, 231
Acum, a Hun, 6
Adam, 193
Adrian, Saint, 86
Adrianople, captured by Krum, 63-5, 68, by Symeon, 158-9, 166—7; raided by Samuel, 237—8;
prisoners from, 65, 71, 79, 85-6; 22, 24, 49, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 73, 74, 75, 89, 95, 144, 208, 234,
282, 291, 292, 293
Adriatic Sea, 99, 174, 221, 226, 233, 240
Ægean Sea, 151, 227, 336
African califate, negotiations with Symeon, 168-9
Africanus, chronological system of, 278
Agatha Chryselia, Tsaritsa, 232
Agathias, historian, 7, 265
Agathonice, 72-3
Agathopolis, 172, 179
Albanian Mountains, 23, 92, 122, 216, 240, 245
Albigeois, heretics, 196, 270
Alciocus, Bulgar chieftain, 19, 20, 21
Alexander, Emperor, reign, 155; 148, 153, 154, 199
Alexandria, 99, 269
Alexius I, Commenus, Emperor, 258
Alogobatur, Bulgar general, 176, 285

Alps, mountains, 82
Alusian, Bulgar prince, 257
Alzeco, Bulgar chieftain, 21
Amasea, 288
Anastasius, Emperor, 6
—, Bibliothecarius, Roman writer, 288
Anatolia, Anatolics, 55, 62
Anchialus, deserted, 59; ceded to Bulgaria, 90-1, 95; 31, 32, 38, 42, 47, 53, 68, 74, 142, 151, 172
Angelarius, disciple of Methodius, 125, 126
Angeli family, 258
Anna, Saint, 192
— , Empress, daughter of Leo VI, 300
— , Porphyrogenneta, Grand Princess of Russia, 180, 226
— , Bulgar princess, 133
Antae, Slav tribe, 10, 22, 25
Antioch, 99, 230, 269-70
Aplaces, John, Imperial general, 61-2
Apocaucus, Imperial stratege, 229
Aprus, fort, 65
Arabs, 26, 33, 41, 92 (see also Saracens); Arabic writers, 269
Arcadiopolis (Lule Burgas), battle, 207; 67, 75, 291
Arianism, 118
Arianites, David, Imperial general, 246, 249
Aristotle, 137
Armenia, Armenians: writers, 269; colonies in Thrace, 35, 47, 217, 227; influence of in Bulgaria,
95, 107, 191-2, 232; 79, 99, 159, 228, 244, 257
Arnulf, King of Germany, 133, 145
Arpad, Magyar chieftain, 145
Arsenius, Higumene, 123
Artana, River, 38
Asen, family of, 260
325
326
Ashot, Prince of Taron, 228-9, 232, 239-40
Asperuch (Isperikh), Khan, reign, 25-30; dates, 273-8; 3, 4, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 43, 51, 58,
202, 261
Atelkuz, 249
Athanasius, Saint, 139
Athens, 251-2
Attica, 229
Attila, is Avitokhol? 279-81; 4, 5, 12, 35, 51
Austria, 149
Avars, conquer Bulgars, 10; Bulgars revolt from, 14-15; in Pannonia, 19, 50-2; 3, 23, 24, 27, 28,
67, 68, 80, 97, 280, 281
Avitokhol, Khan, is Attila ? 279-81; dates, 273-8; 11
Azmak, River, 73
Azov, Sea of, 3, 6, 7, 12, 20
B.
Bagdad, 169
Baian (Batbaian), Khan, 3,16,17, 276
— , boyar, 39, 40
Bakadzhik, 32, 33, 36, 74
Balathistes, forest, 241
Balaton, Lake, 97, 115
Baldric, Marquis of Friuli, 83
Baltic Sea, 22, 99, 150, 186
Baltzene, 72—3
Bardas, Caesar, 99, 101
Bari, 270
Basil I, the Macedonian, Emperor, relations with Rome, 112-14, 117, 119-20; and Slavonic
Liturgy, 124-6; 118, 123, 135,261
— II, Bulgaroctonus, Emperor, character, 223; First Bulgar campaign, 224-5; campaign in
Macedonia, 227-8; yearly campaigns in Bulgaria, 234-8, 240-4; final campaigns, 245-9; Bulgaria
submits to, 249—52; his settlement of Bulgaria, 255-6; 198, 219, 222, 226, 257, 267, 268, 269
— , writer, List of, 282
— the Bogomil, 194
— the Paracoemomenus, 212, 223
Bavaria, 19
Belgrade, 81, 95, 118, 126, 144
Belisarius, Imperial general, 9
Belitsa, 136
Benedict VII, Pope, 226
Benevento, 21
Benjamin, Bulgar prince, 177, 189
Berat, 252
Berrhoea in Thrace (Beroe) 47, 59
— in Macedonia, 226—7, 228, 229, 235, 247
Berzetians, Slav tribe, 41
Bessarabia, 12, 26, 27, 80, 81, 279
Bezmer, Khan, dates, 273-8; 16, 27
Bithynia, 32, 38, 128
Bitolia (Monastir), 243, 249
Bizya, 166
Blachernae, quarter of Constantinople, 67, 156, 179
Black Sea, 7, 21, 27, 38, 40, 52, 60, 66, 143, 171, 186, 202, 225, 235
Boa, Queen of the Sabirs, 7
Bobus, Paul, Magister, 234
Boeotia, 229
Bogas, John, Patrician, 159-60
Bogdan, Bulgar official, 249
Bogomil, Pope, heresiarch, 190-6, 259, 260
Bogomils, heretics, tenets, 190-6; writings, 271-2; 220, 231, 239, 256, 260
Bohemia, 97, 149
Boris I (Michael), Khan or Prince, reign, 90-130; conversion, 102-6; joins Roman Church, 108-
13; deserts Rome, 113-14; abdicates, 130; returns, 134-6; second retirement, 136; during Magyar
invasion, 146; death, 152; 143, 144, 150, 157-8, 258-9, 261, 266, 270, 286, 293-4, 302
— II, Tsar, reign, 205; captured in Preslav, 209-10; abdication, 215; death, 220-1; 200, 204, 217,
219
— , Tarkan, 126, 286
Bosnia, 196
Bosograd, 247
Bosphorus, 64, 161, 166

Boteniates, Theophylact, Imperial general, 241, 242
Bourbon family, 258
Bovianum, 21
Boyana, 246
Branichevtsi, Slav tribe, 82
Branimir, Prince of Croatia, 119
Bregalnitsa, 129, 135-6
327
Brod, River, 247
Bucellarian theme, 257
Bulgar, town, 18, 168
Bulgarophygon, battle, 147
Burdizus, 89, 291
Burgas, Gulf of, 31, 33, 38, 40, 58, 60, 160, 180, 292
Burugundi, Hunnic tribe, 7, 16
C.
Cain, 193
Calabria, 99, 101
Calocyras, Patrician, 200-3, 208-9, 304-5
Calomela, daughter of Eve, 193
Cameniates, John, historian, 269

Candich, Khagan of the Avars, 10
Cardia, castle, 243
Carloman, King of Germany, 97, 102
Carolingian family, 100, 103, 107, 270
Carpathian Mountains, 19, 51, 93, 96, 149
Carus, Papal legate, 168, 173
Castile, royal house of, 258
Castoria, 218, 247, 251
Catacalon, Imperial general, 147
Catasyrtae, first battle, 161; second battle, 165
Cathari, heretics, 193, 196
Catherine, Bulgar princess, Empress, 257
Caucasus Mountains, 6, 15
Cecaumenus, Imperial general, 221-2, 269
Cedrenus, George, historian, 267
Ceductus, 61, 75
Cevennes Mountains, 196
Chaerosphactus, Leo, Magister, ambassador and letter-writer, 146-8, 152, 268
Charles the Great (Charlemagne), Western Emperor, 50, 51, 52
Charles the Bald, King of Western Franks, 91
Chatalar inscription, 77, 274
Cherna, River, 243, 247
Cherson, 30, 200, 203, 213, 226
China, 4
Chinialus, Cotrigur chieftain, 8
Chirotmetus, 243-4
Christopher, Lecapenus, Emperor, 179, 187
Chryselius, John, father-in-law of Samuel, 226, 239-40
Chryselius, Theodore, 240
Cimbalongus, defile, 240-2
Cimmerians, 5, 6
Cinamon, Greek slave, 80, 89, 283
Clement, Saint and martyr, 116
— , Saint, disciple of Methodius, leaves Moravia, 125-6; in Macedonia, 135-6, 138; death, 152-
3; and Slavonic alphabets, 140, 298-9; 127, 220, 254, 268
Clidion. See Cimbalongus
Cnenus, Bulgar official, 175, 287
Colonea in Epirus, 251
Comasius, Saint, 129
Constans II, Emperor, 3, 26
Constantia, 72-3 (Costanza), 180, 212
Constantinacius, Quaestor, 146 Constantine III, Emperor, 13
— IV, Pogonatus, Emperor, 3, 26
— V, Copronymus, Emperor, campaigns in Bulgaria, 35—43, 24, 49, 53, 58, 66, 68, 289, 290
— VI, Emperor, 47-9, 61
— VII, Porphyrogennetus, Emperor, birth, 153; marriage negotiations, 156-7, 163, 299- 301;
death, 198; writings, 176, 180, 181, 268-9, 283, 287, 293-4, 296-7; 266, 302
— VIII, Emperor, 198
— Saint. See Cyril
— Bishop, Bulgar author, 139
Constantinople, sieges: by Avars, 19, 23-4, by Justinian II, 30-1, by Arabs, 33, by Krum, 63-5,
by Thomas, 75, by Symeon, 156-7; Bulgar embassies at, 39, 59, 71-4, 92, 155, 178-83, 199, 202-
3, 303-5; councils at, 113-4, 119-20; and Rome, 99-100, 122; Moravian embassy to, 98, 101-2;
Methodius at, 123-4; Symeon’s interview at, 169-72; Great Palace at, 79; influence on Bulgaria,
259-61; and passim throughout.
Contostephanus, Imperial general, 224-5
Copts, 99
Cordyles, Governor of exiled Macedonians, 85, 87, 294
Corinth, city, 170; gulf of, 159; Isthmus of, 229
Cormesian plain, 20
328
Cosmidium, 169
Cosmos, Greek merchant, 144
Cotrag, son of Kubrat, 3, 16
Cotragi. See Cotrigurs
Cotrigurs, Bulgar tribe, 7-10, 15, 18, 23
Crenites, Procopius, 145
Creta, village, 240
Crete, 198
Crimea, 6, 7, 200, 203
Croatia, Croats: missions to, 283; invaded by Omortag, 83; war with Symeon, 175-6; Pannonian
Croatia, 82, 87, 91, 118; 24, 25, 51, 81, 117, 119, 149, 151, 178, 196, 252, 285, 297
Crobatus. See Kubrat
Cronus, Bulgar ambassador, 287
Cupharas, Theodore, Greek slave, 102-3
Curcuas, John, Imperial general, 208
— , Romanus, 257
Curticius, Imperial general, 145
Cuturgur, 6
Cyril, Saint, sets out for Moravia, 101; dies at Rome, 115-16; 138, 140, 261, 268, 271, 283, 297-
9
Cyrillic alphabet, 161; 140-1, 297-9
Czechs, Slav tribe, 24, 97
D.
Dacians, 80
Dagobert, King of the Franks, 29
Dalmatia, 23, 24, 114, 117, 119, 270, 283
Damascene, St. John, 139
Damian, Patriarch of Bulgaria, 174,182, 216
Danube, River, crossed by Bulgars, 3-4, 20, 25-7, 273-8; by Slavs, 22-4; by Magyars, 145-6;
Petchenegs at, 159-60; crossed by Russians, 201-2, 205; Bulgar possessions beyond, 65, 80, 93,
150; see also Bessarabia, Transylvania, Wallachia, and passim throughout.
Daonin, port, 65
Daphnomelas, Eustathius, Patrician, 240, 250-1
Dargomer, Bulgar ambassador, 59, 70
David, Comitopulus, 217, 218-19 (or John), Patriarch of Bulgaria, 245, 249, 256
Debritsa (Drembitsa), 136
Demetrius, Saint, 20, 23, 227, 236
— , Patriarch of Bulgaria, 182
Demosthenes, 137
Dengisich, Prince of the Huns, 279
Develtus, captured by Krum, 58, 68; ceded by Bulgaria, 90. 95; and peace of, 927, 172, 180; 31,
53, 73, 74, 142, 152, 155, 288
Devol, River, 104, 128, 250
Diampolis, 37
Didymotichum, 227
Dinea, 211
Dioclea (Montenegro), 232, 240, 245
Diogenes, Constantine, Imperial general, 243, 246, 247-8, 252
Ditzeng, boyar, 71, 79
Ditzina, River, 180
Dnieper, River, 3, 69, 81, 167; cataracts, 214
Dniester, River, 3, 27, 145, 149
Dobr the Bogomil, 194
Dobromir, Bulgar general, 235
— the younger, 250
Dobrudja, 26, 28, 38
Dometa, Bulgar official, 128
Dometian, Karkan, 243, 244, 287
Dominic, Saint, 196
Dominic, Bishop of Treviso, 112
Don, River, 3, 10, 15, 16, 18, 81, 279
Donatus, Bishop of Ostia, 113
Dragomir, Prince of Terbunia, 233
Dragomuzh, Bulgar general, 249
Dragovitsa, 193
Drave, River, 83, 97
Draxan, Bulgar general, 236
Drina, Black, River, 104

Dristra, Patriarchal, 322, 174, 181, 215-16, 219; held by Russians, 209-14; 135, 144, 146, 201,
217, 247
Dryinopolis, 251
Dual Procession. See Filioque
Ducas, Andronicus, 258
Duks, Bulgar prince, 118, 139
Dukum, boyar, 71
Dulcigno, 232
Dulo, family of, 11, 12, 13, 14, 29, 30, 35, 258, 273, 280
Dyrrhachium, captured by Samuel, 225-6; betrayed, 239-40; attacked by John Vladislav, 246,
248; 22, 148, 153, 159, 170, 232, 251
329
E.
Ekhatch, Eschatzes, The Sampses, 126, 286
Ekusous, Ecosus, a Bulgar, 58
Elbe, River, 22
Elemagus, Bulgar general, 252
Elitzes, Bulgar general, 243
Ennodius, historian, 270
Enotia, castle, 244
Enravotas, Bulgar prince, martyred, 89-90; 84,103, 285,293
Epiphanius, writer, 282
Epirus, 251
Ergenz, River, 67
Erkesiya. See Fence, Great
Ermi, family of, 11, 13, 273
Ernach, Ernak, Prince of the Huns, is Irnik, 279-81; 12, 16
Eroticus, Nicephorus, Patrician, 203
Esztergom, 77
Etzboclia, Bulgar general, 175, 287
Eumathius, engineer, 54-5
Eupraxia, Bulgar princess, 133
Eusebius, Saint, 129
Eustathius, Imperial admiral, 145, 146
Euthymius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 154
Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, 269, 300
Eve, 193
F.
Fence, the Great, of Thrace, construction, 73, 288-90; 33, 74, 75, 76, 77, 90, 199, 215, 304
Filimer, King of the Goths, 4
Filioque Clause, 108, 112, 119
Formosus, Pope, Legate in Bulgaria, 109, 111-13; 115, 122-3
France, 50
Franks, 50, 81-3, 85, 87, 91, 97, 129, 153. See Carolingian family
Friuli, 83
Frunticus, Bulgar ambassador, 120
G.
Gabriel, Bulgar prince, 133
— , or Germanus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, 219
— -Radomir (or Romanus), Tsar, accession, 242-3; murder of, 244-5; 230, 231, 233-4, 250, 257,
287
— Galaxidi, 174, 230
Ganus, hill, 65
Genesius, chronicler, 266, 291
George, Saint, Miracles of, 271
— (Hamartolus) the Monk,
— chronicle of, 266, 291; Slavonic translation, 271; Continuation, 267
— , Bishop of Belgrade, 118
— , Regent. See Sursubul
Georgia, Georgians, 124
Gepids, 5, 8, 22
Germanus, Saint, 129
— , Caesar, 9
— , Patriarch of Constantinople, 33
— , Patriarch of Bulgaria. See Gabriel
Germany, 10, 50, 67, 82, 100, 101, 108, 116, 130. See Arnulf, Charles, Louis, Kings of
Germany.
Getae, 5
Glabas, Basil, 234
Glagolitic alphabet, 101, 140-1, 297-9
Glavenitza, 128
Glycas, historian, 267
Goinic, Serbian prince, 92

Golden Gate of Constantinople, 32, 48, 215
— Horn, 64, 156, 169
Gonitziates, George, Imperial general, 246
Gorazd, disciple of Methodius, 125
Gostun, Khan, 11, 13, 14, 273, 277
Goths, 4, 22, 117
Grammus, Mount, 104
Greece, Greek peninsula, 9, 47, 150, 174
Gregory, Patriarch of Bulgaria, 182
— , Prince of Taron, 228-9
— , Presbyter, writer, 139
Grimoald, Lombard King, 21
— , Bishop of Polimarti, 112
Grod (Gordas or Gordian), King of Crimean Huns, 7-8
H.
Hadrian II, Pope, 112-16
— III, Pope, 125
Haemus Mountains, 24, 27, 34, 73
Hebdomum, 179
Helena, Lecapena, Empress, 163, 301
Hellas, theme, 251
Hellespont, 65, 164
330
Hemnecus, 175, 287
Heraclea, 61, 65, 165
Heraclius, Emperor, 13, 14
Heristal, 81, 82
Herod, King, 193
Hexabulius, Imperial official, 64
Hiung-nu, 4
Hohenstaufen, family of, 258
Hungary, Hungarians, 50, 233, 270, 281. See Magyars
— , Princess of, wife of Gabriel-Radomir, 233-4, 257
Hunno, Alexius, the sampses, 288
Huns, 4-16, 22, 135, 261, 281
I.
Iberians, 8
Ibn-Foszlan, writer, 18
Ibrahim-ibn-Yakub, writer, 186, 198
Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, deposed, 99; reinstated, 112-14; biography, 268, 291; 117,
118
— , biographer, 268
Igor, Grand Prince of Russia, 186, 209
Illyricum, 101, 112, 117, 173, 283
India, 197
Ioannupolis, name for Preslav, 210
Irene, Saint, Empress, peaceful policy, 47-50; 43, 52, 59

— , Ducaena, Empress, 258
— of Larissa, Tsaritsa, 222, 233-4, 244
— , Lecapena, Tsaritsa. See Maria.
Irenupolis, name for Berrhoea, 47
Irnik, Khan, is Ernach, 279-81; dates, 273-7; II
Iron Gate, pass in Stranya Planina, 90
— of the Danube, 238
Isaac I, Comnenus, Emperor, 257
Isbules, Kavkan, 84-5, 88, 94, 284, 287, 293, 295-7
Isernia, 21
Isker, River, 27
Isperikh. See Asperuch.
Italy, 112, 130, 150, 159, 198
Ivatza, Bulgar general, 246, 250-1
J.
Jacob, Bulgar prince, 133
Japheth, 11, 281
Jeremiah. See Bogomil Jerusalem, 99
Joachim, Saint, 192
John the Evangelist, Saint, 192
— of Rila, Saint, 189, 204
— I, Tzimisces, Emperor, Bulgar wars, 206-16; death, 218- 19; 221, 267
— VIII, Pope, 116-21, 125
— X, Pope, 174, 288

— , Patriarch of Bulgaria. See David.
— , Bulgar prince, 177, 188
— , Bishop of Nikiou, writer, 13, 275
— of Antioch, writer, 7
— , Bulgar ambassador, 168
— the Chaldee, 249
— the Exarch, writer, 139, 141-2, 197
— Geometrus, poet, 222—3, 225
— the Presbyter, Papal legate, 118-19
— -Vladislav, Tsar, reign, 244-9; death, 248-9; 231, 257
Jordanes, writer, 270
Joseph, Paracoemomenus, 215
Julian the Apostate, Emperor, 129
Justin II, Emperor, 286
Justinian I, Emperor, 6, 8-9, 22
— II, Rhinotmetus, Emperor, 30, 31, 34, 261
K.
Kadi-Keui, inscription, 58
Kama, River, 18, 81
Kardam, Khan, reign, 48-50; 51, 52, 61, 258
Karnobad, 36
Khazars, 17, 18, 30, 281
Khrabr, writer, 139, 197, 271, 299
Kiev, 202, 205, 214
Kocel, Moravian prince, 115

Kormisosh, Khan, reign, 35-7; 33, 39, 59, 273, 277, 289
Kosara, Bulgar princess, Princess of Dioclea, 233, 245, 251
Kouria, Petcheneg chieftain, 214
Kozma, writer, 191, 196-7, 271
Kraina, 245
Krakra, Bulgar general, 238, 240, 246, 247, 248-9
Krum, Khan, reign, 51-70; wars, 525-6, 291-2; legislation, 68-70; death, 68; 71, 72, 74, 76, 79,
80, 89, 90, 94, 130, 170, 214, 258, 261, 266, 295; family of, 215, 216,231,238
Kuber, Bulgar chieftain, 20
Kubiares family, 83
331
Kubrat (Kurt), Khan, reign, 13-16; dates, 273-7; sons, 3, 4, 17-19; 10, 11, 50, 51, 81, 261
Kuphis (Kuban), River, 12
Kurson, Magyar chieftain, 145
Kurt. See Kubrat.
Kutmichevtsa, 128
L.
Lampsacus, 164
Languedoc, 196
Larissa, captured by Samuel, 221-2; 224, 231, 233, 235, 251
Laurentius, disciple of Methodius, 125
Leo III, the Isaurian, Emperor, 33, 35, 101

— IV, Emperor, 43
— V, the Armenian, Emperor, campaigns in Bulgaria, 62-8, 290-2; makes peace, 72-4; 266
— VI, the Wise, Emperor, at war with Symeon, 145-9; matrimonial troubles, 153-5; writings,
282; 126, 135, 302
— Diaconus, writer, 225, 267, 303-5
— Grammaticus, writer, 267
— Magister. See Chaerosphactus.
— of Tripoli, pirate, 151, 167
Leontius, Patriarch of Bulgaria, 164, 174, 181-2
Liplyan, 249
Lithosoria, 41
Little Scythia, 12, 279
Liudevit, Prince of Croatia, 82
Liudprand, Bishop of Cremona, ambassador and writer, 197-8, 202, 270-1, 301, 304-5
Logothete, the, unknown historian, 267, 293
Lombardy, Lombards, 21, 196
Long Walls, the, in Thrace, 36
Longus, castle, 247
Lothair II, King of Lorraine, 100
Louis I, the Pious, Emperor, 67-8, 81-3
— II, Emperor, 99
— III, of Provence, Emperor, 300
— II, the German, King of Germany, 83, 87, 91, 97, 98, 102, 108, 109
Luke the Less, Saint, 159, 268
— the Stylite, Saint, 147
Lupus, Protospatharius, chronicler, 270

M.
Macedonia, Slavs in, 21, 24; Bulgar settlements in, 87-9, 93; territory ceded to Bulgars, 104,
180; Clement in, 127-8, 135-6, 138; Bulgar aggression in, 151-2; centre of Samuel’s Empire,
216-52, passim; Macedonian exiles from Adrianople, 85-6; 53, 55, 62, 70, 261, 282
Machelm, German ambassador, 82
Macrolivada, 72-3, 288
Madalbert, Papal legate, 173, 174, 176
Madara, 79
Magotinus, Bulgar ambassador, 287
Magyars, raid Bulgaria, 145-7, 153, 185-6; settle in Pannonia, 149-51; 18, 81, 86, 152, 160, 167,
178, 184, 201, 205, 233, 270, 304-5; see Hungary
Mainz, 91
Malacenus, Protospatharius, 234
Malalas, John, historian, 139, 265
Malamir, Khan, reign, 84-90; and Presiam, 292-7; 71, 92, 94, 287
Manassas, chronicler, 267
Mani, heresiarch, 191
Manuel, Archbishop of Adrianople, 65, 71, 79
Manzikert, 257
Marcellae, 36, 48, 55, 56
Marcianopolis, 143, 282
Margum, 5, 135
Maria, Princess of Bulgaria, wife of Boris I, 133
— (Irene), Lecapena, Tsaritsa, marriage 178-82; influence, 187, 197; death, 198, 304-5; 142,
156, 184, 191, 199, 204, 302
— , Tsaritsa, wife of John-Vladislav, 249, 251

— , Bulgar princess, wife of Andronicus Ducas, 258
Marinus, Pope, legate in Bulgaria, 113; in Constantinople, 120; 121, 122-3, 125
Maritsa, River, 33, 73, 224, 236
Marmaëm, Bulgar general, 162, 175
Marmora, Sea of, 156
Martin, Bulgar ambassador, 108
Martina, Empress, 13, 16
Mary, the Virgin, 190, 192, 212, 252
— the New, Saint, 268
332
Matrucium, 242
Maurice, Emperor, 23
Mehdia, 168
Meleona frontier, 32, 59, 70, 289-90
Melissenus, Leo, Magister, 224-5
Melitene, 35
Melnik, 238, 242
Menander Protector, writer, 265
Menicus, 287
Mesembria, captured by Krum, 60-1, 68; Leo V’s campaign near, 66, 290-2; rebuilt by Emperor,
73-4; conference at, 178, 180; 3, 31, 39, 40, 59, 160-1, 172, 282
Methodius, Saint, brother of Cyril, with Cyril, 101, 115-6; returns to Moravia, 123; death, 124-5;
138, 261, 268, 271, 283
Methodius, Greek artist, 102-3

Michael I, Rhangabe, Emperor, 57, 58-62
— II, the Amorian, Emperor, 75, 85
— III, the Drunkard, Emperor, 101, 103, 104, 112, 302
— , Prince of Bulgaria. See Boris
— , Prince of Zachlumia, 162
— , Bulgar prince, 177, 188
— , Bishop of Devol, copyist, 267
— , son of Moroleon, Imperial general, 165
Miroslava, Bulgar princess, 232, 239-40
Moesia, 4, 282
Moglena, 219, 220, 243-4
Moimir, Prince of Moravia, 96-7
Moldavia, 51, 150
Moliscus, 247
Monastir. See Bitolia
Mongols, 18
Monophysite heretics, 192
Monothelite controversy, 26
Montfort, Simon de, 196
Morava, River, 5, 87, 135, 237
Moravia, Moravians; become powerful, 96-7; conversion, 98, 101-2, 271; Slavonic liturgy in,
115-17, 124-5; Slavonic alphabet in, 298-9; falls before Magyars, 149; 24, 51, 95, 103, 133, 140
Moroleon, Imperial general, 165, 166
Morovisd, 249
Moses, Comitopulus, 217, 218

Mosynopolis, 235, 242, 243, 246, 249
Mugel, Prince of Crimean Huns, 8
Mundo, Hunnic brigand, 5, 6
Mundraga, 146
Muntimer, Serbian prince, 92-3
N.
Nahum, Saint, disciple of Methodius, comes to Bulgaria, 125-6; at Preslav, 135-6; goes to
Macedonia, 138; dies, 152; biography, 271; 220
Naïssus (Nish), 95, 144
‘Nestor,’ chronicler, 271, 278, 303-5
Nestorians, heretics, 99
Nestoritsa, Bulgar general, 241, 250
Nestos, River, 88
Nicaea in Thrace, 59
Nicene Creed, 119, 125
Nicephorus I, Emperor, wars with Krum, 52-7; killed, 57; 50, 58, 59
— II, Phocas, Emperor, wars with Bulgarians, 190-206, 303-5; murder of, 206; 180, 223, 267,
290
— , Patriarch of Constantinople, 61; writings, 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 36, 265-6; biography, 268
Nicetas, Patrician, 179
— , biographer, 268
Nicholas I, Pope, quarrel with Photius, 99-101, 103; negotiations with Boris, 108-12; 115, 116,
117, 270
— , Mysticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Regent, 155; Bulgarian policy, 155-8; letters to

Symeon, 164-70; 173-4, 268; 153-4, 300-1
— , Count, father of Comitopuli, 217, 286

— , Imperial soldier, 57
Nicon Metanoeite, Saint, 229, 268
Nicopolis, 188
Niculitzes, 222, 235, 236, 251; family of, 269
Nitra, 97, 125
Noah, 12
Noble War, the, 41
North Sea, 99
333
O.
Ochrida, lake, 104, 128; episcopal and patriarchal see, 135-6, I38, 255; town, capital of Bulgaria,
220; buildings, 231; captured by Basil II, 245, 246, 249; 142, 152, 299
Oder, River, 97
Odessus, 282
Okorses, Zhupan, 81, 286
Old Great Bulgaria, 4, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18
Olga, Grand Princess of Russia, 201-3, 205
Omortag, Khan, reign, 71-84; peace with Leo V, 72-4, 289-90; buildings, 75-9; death, 84; 89, 93,
94, 130, 274, 283, 288, 293
Onegavon, Tarkan, 83, 286
Onglus (Oglus), 25, 28, 202
Onogunduri, Bulgar tribe, 14, 18, 280
Onoguri, Bulgar tribe, 7, 16
Opsician theme, 30
Orestes, Protospatharius, 246
Organ a, Khan, 14
Ostrovo, Lake, 104, 244; River, 236; town, 244, 247
Othrys hills, 229
Otto I, Western Emperor, 186, 198, 218
— II, Western Emperor, 180, 226
Ozum, River, 104
P.
Paderborn, 87
Pancrat, soothsayer, 48
Pannonia, 3, 19, 20, 50, 51, 52, 67, 68, 83, 84, 87, 150
Panteliemon, Monastery of Saint. See Patleïna
Paristrium, theme of, 255
Parthenon, 252
Passau, Bishops of, 97, 98
Patarenes, heretics, 193, 196
Patleïna, Monastery of Saint Panteliemon at, 130, 136, 137, 143, 299
Patras, 159
Patzicus, Constantine, 64
Paul, Prince of Serbia, 163, 165, 167
— , Bishop of Ancona, Papal legate, 117
— , Bishop of Polimarti, Papal legate, 112
Paul, Bishop of Populonia, Papal legate, 109, 112-13
Paulicians, heretics, 91, 107, 191-3, 217

Pegae-on-the-Bosphorus, 166
— , suburb of Constantinople, 169, 179
Peloponnese, 23, 88, 174, 229
Pentapolis of Ravenna, 3
Pernik, 238, 246, 249
Persians, 8, 23
Petchenegs, dislodge Magyars, 145, 149; negotiations with Zoe, 159-60, with Romanus I, 167;
raid Bulgaria, 178, 185-6; war with Svyatoslav, 202, 214; 163, 200, 205, 211, 247
Peter, Saint, 99, 111, 118, 121-
— , Tsar, reign, 177-205; marriage, 179-81; title, 182, 301-3; external policy, 184-6; internal
rule, 187; death, 204-5, 304-5; 156, J73, 219, 220, 230, 238, 259, 270
— , Prince of Serbia, 162-3
— , Bulgar ambassador, at Rome, 108, 113; at Constantinople, 113-14; 118 288
Delean, Bulgar prince, 234, 257
Petrich, 244
Petrisk, 244
Peuce, island, 26
Pharsalia, 229
Phenedia, 168
Philetus, Imperial general, 47
Philip, Patriarch of Bulgaria, 219-20
Philippi, 59, 81; inscription, 293-4, 296
Philippopolis, deserted, 59, 68, 73-4, 87; annexed by Bulgars, 88; captured by Russians, 205-6;
reannexed to Empire, 215, 217, 219; used as base by Basil II, 224-4, 235, 238; 75, 135, 142, 144,
193, 224, 255, 282
Philotheus, Bishop of Euchaïta, Imperial ambassador, 203, 214
Phocas, Emperor, 23
— family, 212; see also Nicephorus II, Emperor
— , Bardas, Caesar, 199
— , Bardas, rebel, 208, 226
— , Leo, Imperial general, 160-1
334
Phocas, Nicephorus, the elder, Imperial general, 145, 146-7, 160, 198
Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, quarrel with Pope, 99-101; letter to Boris, 106-7; deposed,
112-14; reinstated, 118, 119-20; deposed again, 126; 103, 108, 109, 115, 124, I35, 137, 261, 268
— , Macedonian saint, 227
Pindus Mountains, 92
Pitzia, Gothic general, 6
Pliska, Bulgar capital, 28, 51; captured by Nicephorus I, 53-4, 56; buildings at, 65, 76, 79, 96;
rebellion in, 104-5; 37, 71, 75, 122, 136, 211, 225, 235, 272, 286
Polemarchius, Demetrius, Bulgar general, 227
Praestizisunas, Bulgar ambassador, 288
Predenecenti, Slav tribe, 82
Presiam, Bulgar prince, and Malamir, 292-7; 84, 88, 92
Preslav, Great Preslav, built, 77-8, 274; becomes capital, 136, 138-9; buildings, 141-3; taken by
Magyars, 146; Patriarchal see at, 174, 181-2, 215; captured by Russians, 205, by John I, 208-10,
by Samuel, 225, by Basil II, 235; 85, 96, 122, 130, 144, 151, 153, 154, 164, 172, 187, 188, 197,
219, 272, 299
— , on the Danube, Little Preslav, early settlement, 26, 96; Svyatoslav’s capital, 203, 205, 202,
215, 235, 272
Prespa, Lake, 104; town, capital, 219, 220, 222, 233; 218, 231, 242, 250-1
Pribina, Prince of Nitra, 97

Prilep, 136, 241, 243
Probatum, Provadia, 48, 59, 89, 135
Procopia, Empress, 61, 75
Procopius, historian, 6-8, 265
Prosek, 249
Prusian, Bulgar prince, 249, 250, 257
Pruth, River, 86, 145
Pyrenees Mountains, 196
Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 13
Q.
Quedlinburg, 218
R.
Radomir, Bulgar prince, 257
Ragusa, 162
Rase (Racka), 92
Ratimir, Prince of Croatia, 92
Ratisbon, 109, 145, 151
Ravenna, 3, 21
Rendacius, Sisinnius, Imperial ambassador, 33
Rhaedestus (Rodosto), 65, 208
Rhipsime, Countess, 217
Rhodope Mountains, 24, 34, 88, 238, 241, 247, 282
Rhodophyles, Cubicularius, 151
Richelieu, Cardinal, 69
Rila, 189,216,299
Romanus I, Lecapenus, Emperor, ascends throne, 160-1; war with Symeon, 163-8; interview
with Symeon, 169-72, 259; letters, 172-3, 268; relations with Peter, 185-6, 188, 302-3; 158, 174,
177, 178-9, 186, 188, 198, 212, 300-1
— II, Emperor, 198, 302
— IV, Diogenes, Emperor, 257
— , Bulgar prince, son of Peter, eunuch, 215; escape to Bulgaria, 220-1; surrenders, 238; 200,
205, 219, 224, 230
Rome, Bulgar embassies to, 108, 112, 113, 114, 120; compared to Constantinople, 122; 50, 99,
168
Romuald, Lombard prince, 21
Rostislav, King of Moravia, embassy to Constantinople, 97-8, 101-2; 115, 116
Russia, Russians: allied to Nicephorus I, 200; invade Bulgaria, 201-3, 205-14, 304-5; 143, 167,
180, 186, 216, 226, 247, 259, 261, 271
S.
Sabbas, disciple of Methodius, 125
Sabbatius, monk, 72, 292
Sabin, Khan, 39-40, 276-7
Sabirs, Hunnish tribe, 7, 10
Saint Elias, castle, 243
Saint George, River, 48
Saint Mamas, palace, 64, 76; quarter, 144
Salona, 23
Samo, Slav chieftain, 24
335
Samuel, Comitopulus, Tsar, rise, 218; reign, 219-43; internal policy, 231; death, 242-3; 173, 217,
245, 249, 251, 256, 257, 259, 261, 270
— Alusian, Bulgar prince, 257
Sandilch, Khan of the Utigurs, 8-9
Saracens, 30, 55, 75, 145, 199; see Arabs
Saraguri, Bulgar tribe, 7
Sardica, captured by Krum, 53; recovered, 54; annexed by Bulgars, 87; 23, 34, 58, 68, 73, 74,
95, 135, 144, 189, 282; see Sofia
Sarmatians, 22
Satan, 193, 196
Save, River, 22, 52
Sclavinia, Slavonia, 30, 67
Sclerus, Bardas, rebel, 207, 219, 226, 227
— Nicetas, Patrician, 145
Scutari, Lake, 245
Scylitzes, Johannes, historian, 230, 267, 303-5
Scythians, 4, 5, 271
Selymbria, 65, 165
Sepenum, 21
Serbia, Serbs; converted, 283; Presiam invades, 87-8, 296-7; Boris invades, 92-3; Symeon’s wars
with, 162-3, 165, 162-7; annexed by Bulgars, 175; revolts, 185; 24, 25, 53, 118, 151, 196, 232,
252, 293
— (Selfidje), 227, 235, 236, 252
Seres (Serrae), 218, 219, 240, 249
Sergius, Patrician, 182
Sermon, Lord of Sirmium, 252

Setaena, 247
Sevar, Khan, 35, 273, 276-7
Shchip (Ishtip), 243, 249
Shishman, 217-8
Shumla inscription, 76, 89, 294-5
Sicily, 99, 151
Sigritze, Bulgar general, 162, 175
Sinnion, Cotrigur chieftain, 8
Sirmium, 6, 116, 252
Sisinni, Saint, 193
Skopie, Uskub, 237, 238, 249
Slavonic Liturgy, 101, 115, 116, 117, 124, 125, 135-6, 139
Slavs, 22-5, and passim throughout
Sofia, Basil II attacks, 224-5, 228; 219, 235, 238, 246; see Sardica
Sondok, Bulgar official, 118, 288
Sophia, Empress, 166
Sophia, Cathedral of Saint, 154, 215
Sosk, 244, 252
Sozopolis, 172, 180
Spalato, 174, 176
Spercheus, River, battle at, 229-30; 237, 251
Stagi, 252
Stasis, Bulgar ambassador, 288
Stauracius, Emperor, 55, 57-8
— , Imperial general, 47
—, merchant, 144
Stephen V, Pope, 125
— , Porphyrogennetus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 123, 126, 135,153
— , of Amasea, Patriarch of Constantinople, 174, 179
— , King of Hungary, 233
— , Bishop of Nepi, 113
— the Bulgar, royal relative, 178, 287
Stoponium, 224
Stroemer, Prince of Serbia, 92
Strongylus, fort, 43
Struma, River, 47, 88, 238, 240, 246
Strumitsa, 129, 238, 242, 246, 249
Strymon, theme of, 53; city, 59
Suidas, lexicographer, 68, 269
Suleiman Keui inscription, 72, 289
Sursubul, George, Regent of Bulgaria, 177-9, 183, 187, 287
Svatopulk I, King of Moravia, 116, 117, 149
— II (Salanus), King of Moravia, 133
Svengel, Russian general, 209-10, 212
Svinitse (Zvenitzes), Bulgar prince, 84, 90, 293
Svyatoslav, Grand Prince of Russia, 201-3, 205-14, 226
Symeon, Tsar, education, 123; accession, 137; reign, 137-77; patronizes letters and art, 138-43;
first war with Empire, 144-50; marriage scheme, 156-7, 299-301; second war with Empire, 157-
69; interview with Romanus I, 169-72; proclaims himself Tsar, 173-4; war with Croatia, 175-6;
death,
336
Symeon, Tsar (continued)— 177; result of reign, 177-8, 183; 130, 134, 183, 184, 188, 189, 197,
199, 200, 215, 259, 261, 267, 268, 286, 287, 293, 302
— , brother-in-law of Tsar Symeon, 178, 286, 287
— , the Asecretis, 151-2
Syrians, 35, 224
T.
Tabari, chronicler, 148
Tagma, Turkish Ambassador, 286
Taman peninsula, 6
Taridin, Count, 129, 286
Taron, theme of, 257; princely family of, 228, 249
Tarsus, 199, 303
Tcheslav, boyar, 126
Telerig, Khan, 41-3
Telets, Khan, 37-9, 273, 276, 277
Tempe, Vale of, 229
Terbunia, 233
Tervel, Khan, reign, 30-4; peace treaty with Theodosius III, 32-3, 59, 63, 70, 73, 289; dates, 273-
7; 43, 58, 144, 261
Tetraxite Goths, 6, 8
Theiss, River, Bulgar frontier, 50-2, 81, 97, 149; 69, 83, 286
Theodora, Saint, Empress-Regent, 80, 90-1, 102, 292
— , Empress, wife of Romanus I, 166

Theodore, Stratilates, Saint, 212
— , Bulgar prince, 257
— , Abbot of Studium, 61, 80
— , Bulgar ambassador, 147
— , Tarkan, 152
Theodoric, Ostrogothic King, 5, 6
Theodorocanus, Imperial general, 235
Theodorupolis, name for Preslav, 214-5
Theodosiopolis (Erzerum), 35, 257
Theodosius III, Emperor, 32, 33, 59, 289
— , Bishop of Nona, 120
— , Protovestiarius, 147
— of Melitene, historian, 257
Theophanes, Saint, historian, 153; works, 7, 15, 25, 26, 36-7, 42, 54, 265-6; 276, 291;
Continuator of, 266-7, 291
— , Protovestarius and Paracoemomenus, 179-80
Theophano, Empress, 198, 204, 206
— , Western Empress, 180, 226
Theophilus, Emperor, 85-6, 290
Theophylact, Lecapenus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 190, I91, 195, 268
— , Archbishop of Bulgaria,
— writer, 256, 268, 293-4
— , Papal legate, 180, 226
Thermitsa, 246
Thermopylae, 9, 229, 251

Thessalonica, sieges by Slavs, 20, 23, 24; trade-route to, 95; Bulgar trade diverted to, 144, 148;
sack by Leo of Tripoli, 151-2, 167, 269; attacked by Samuel, 228, 229; visited by Basil II, 227,
243, 246; 30, 33, 34, 87, 101, 129, 140, 159, 188, 234, 236, 238, 240, 241, 282, 298 Thessaly,
41, 221-2, 224, 236, 238, 251, 252 Thirty Years’ Peace made, 72; ended, 88; 74, 75, 78, 84-5, 87
Thomas, rebel, 75
Thrace, invaded by Telets, 38, 1 by Kardam, 48, by Krum, 61, 63, by Symeon, 145, 146, 147,
156-7, 161, 164, 166, 167, 169; Asiatic colonies in, 107, 169, 192, 217; Great Fence of, see
Fence; 22, 32, 34, 37, 40, 47, 58, 88, 159, 171, 172, 206, 207, 231
Thracian Chersonese, 9
Tiberiupolis in Bithynia, 129
— in Macedonia, 128-9
Tiberius, Emperor, 31
Timok, River, 237; Timocian Slavs, 81-2
Timothy, Saint, 129
Tirnovo, 77, 260
Tirpimir, Prince of Croatia, 92
Tokt, Khan, 40
Tomislav, King of Croatia, 175-6
Tomor, Mount, 128, 250
Trajan, Emperor, 80
— , Bulgar prince, 257
— Gate of, defile, 224, 235
Tranemarisca (Turtakan), 76
Transylvania, Bulgar Empire in, 50, 51, 80, 95; lost to Magyars, 149-50
Tsepa, boyar, 84, 284, 295
Tsigat, Bulgar ambassador, 41
Tsok, boyar, 71
337
Tudor Doksov, son of Doks, Bulgar prince and writer, 139, 273, 275, 277
Tundzha, River, 40
Turanians, 18
Turkestan, 261
Turks, 9-10, 15, 57, 281, 286
Tutsa, River, 77
Tzanagares family, 81
Tzeesthlav, Prince of Serbia, 175, 185
Tzimisces, Emperor. See John I
U.
Ugain family, 37, 273
Ukil or Vokil family, 35, 40, 273
Umar, Khan, dates, 273-7; 40, 41
Unogunduri. See Onogunduri
Uranus, Nicephorus, Imperial general, 229-30, 234, 251
Urogi, Bulgar tribe, 7
Uskub. See Skopie Utigurs, Bulgar tribe, 7-10, 279-80
Uturgur, 6
V.
Valens, emperor, 57
Varangian Guard, 201, 202, 247

Vardar, River, 237, 238, 246, 249
Varna, 27, 40, 41, 180, 282
Vaspurakan, 257
Vatatzes, Imperial official, 234
Venice, 125, 162, 233, 270
Verbitsa, Pass of, 57
Veregava, Pass of, 36-7, 40, 57, 91, 208
Versinicia, 49, 61-2, 75
Vestranna, Bulgar ambassador, 288
Vesuvius, Mount, 21
Vidin, 237
Vienna, 97
Vinekh, Khan, 37, 273, 277
Vishegrad. See Bosograd
Visigoths, 57
Vistula, River, 97
Vitalian, rebel, 6
Vlachs, 80, 218
Vladimir, Prince of Bulgaria, reign, 133-6; 86, 92, 145, 177, 284
— , Grand Prince of Russia, 180, 226
— , Prince of Dioclea, 232-3, 240, 245, 248
Vlastemer, Prince of Serbia, 88, 92
Vodena, 219-20, 236, 243, 248
Voiusa, River, 104, 128
Vokil family. See Ukil

Volerus, 236, 243
Volga, River, 18, 21, 81
W.
Wallachia, Bulgar empire in, 27, 51, 80, 150; overrun by Petchenegs, 160, 202
Wendic Mark, 19
Wiching, Bishop of Nitra, 125
X.
Xiphias, Nicephorus, Protospatharius, 235, 241, 243, 246, 252
Y.
Yachya, patriarch of Antioch, writer, 221, 269-70
Z.
Zabergan, king of the Cotrigurs, 9
Zacharias, Prince of Serbia, 165, 167, 175
Zachlumia, 162
Zagoria in Macedonia, 242
— in Thrace, 31, 34
Zaützes, Basileopator, 145, 147, 153
Zdeslav, Prince of Croatia, 119
Zeno, Emperor, 5
Zergobul, Bulgar ambassador, 118, 288
Zhuan-Zhuan or Zhen-Zhen, 9
Zoe, Garbopsina, Empress, marriage, 153-5; regency, 158-62; son’s marriage, 158, 300-1; 164,
168, 198
Zonaras, historian, 267
Zoroastrianism, 193
Zvenitzes. See Svinitse
Turkiston Kutubxonasi
Turkistan Library
Туркестанская Библиотека
http://www.turklib.ru
http://www.turklib.uz
http://www.turklib.com

A History of The First Bulgarian Empire (Runciman)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A History of The First Bulgarian Empire (Runciman)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Туркестанская Библиотека - www.turklib.

A history of the First Bulgarian Empire

Steven Runciman (G. Bell & Sons, London 1930)

Book I The children of the Huns

1. The five sons of King Kubrat

2. Barbarians in the Balkans

Book II The great powers of Europe

2. Excursion into the West

3. The auction of souls

Book III The two eagles

1. Emperor of the Bulgars and the Romans

2. Men of god and men of blood

3. The end of an empire

1. Original sources for early Bulgarian history

2. The Bulgarian Princes’ list

3. Ernach and Irnik

4. Christianity among the Slavs before the ninth century

6. The Great fence of Thrace

7. Leo the Armenian’s successful campaign

8. Malamir and Presiam

9. The Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets

10. Symeon’s imperial marriage scheme

11. Tthe peace of 927 and Peter’s title

12. The chronology of the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas’s Bulgarian wars

Bibliography: Abbreviations — Original sources — Modern works

A history of the First Bulgarian Empire

fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge

G. Bell & Sons Ltd., London 1930

A history of the First Bulgarian Empire

BOOK I THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS

CHAPTER I THE FIVE SONS OF KING KUBRAT 3

CHAPTER II BARBARIANS IN THE BALKANS 22

BOOK II THE GREAT POWERS OF EUROPE

CHAPTER I AN EMPEROR’S SKULL 47

CHAPTER II EXCURSION INTO THE WEST 71

CHAPTER III THE AUCTION OF SOULS 99

BOOK III THE TWO EAGLES

CHAPTER I EMPEROR OF THE BULGARS AND THE ROMANS 133

CHAPTER II MEN OF GOD AND MEN OF BLOOD 184

CHAPTER III THE END OF AN EMPIRE 217

I ORIGINAL SOURCES FOR EARLY BULGARIAN HISTORY 265

II THE BULGARIAN PRINCES’ LIST 272

III ERNACH AND IRNIK 279

IV CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE SLAVS BEFORE THE NINTH CENTURY 281

V BULGAR TITLES 284

VI THE GREAT FENCE OF THRACE 288

VII LEO THE ARMENIAN’S SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN 290

VIII MALAMIR AND PRESIAM 292

IX THE CYRILLIC AND GLAGOLITIC ALPHABETS 297

X SYMEON’S IMPERIAL MARRIAGE SCHEME 299

XI THE PEACE OF 927 AND PETER’S TITLE 301

XII THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EMPEROR NICEPHORUS PHOCAS’S BULGARIAN

MAP OF BULGARIA DURING THE FIRST EMPIRE at end

A history of the First Bulgarian Empire

Consequently, few historians have attempted to deal

1. Its only great defect is an absence of any maps.

Book I THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS

The five sons of king Kubrat

1. Theophanes, pp. 546-9: Nicephorus, pp. 33-5.

2. Jordanes, Getica, p. 89.

1. John of Antioch, Fragmenta, p. 619.

3. Cassiodorus Senator, p. 160.

4. Theophanes, pp. 339-40.